Neil Gorsuch

June 26 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit’s arm that covers South Carolina, can’t sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit’s Medicaid funding because it provides abortions.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars,” wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday.

“Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values,” he added, “and today, we are finally victorious.”

The 6-3 decision followed the court’s ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support.

The court’s syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that “federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable ‘rights.'”

“This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where ‘the typical remedy’ for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits,” he continued.

“No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights,” he later wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983.

“South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors,” Jackson stated. “The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”

South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state’s Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions.

The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider.”

“If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment,” the post continued. “We’re still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve.”

The post concluded with “We’re in this with you, and we aren’t going anywhere.”

June 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue two Palestinian entities in U.S. courts.

The decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals in the New York-based 2nd Circuit that found the law denied the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority fair legal process.

All nine justices ruled that the bipartisan 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate due process rights of the PLO and PA.

The lawsuit and appeal involve cases from the early 2000s and not the Israel-Hamas war and airstrikes between Israel and Iran. It was based on the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, which creates a federal civil damages action for U.S. nationals injured or killed “by reason of an act of international terrorism.”

Founded in 1964, the PLO is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. The PA, founded in 1994, is the Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 46-page opinion that included a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and backed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wanted to define the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Lawsuits by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can move forward in American courts.

“It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to ATA compensation,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

In April, the high court consolidated two cases for arguments: a Justice Department appeal and an appeal by the family of Israeli-American Ari Fuld, who was fatally stabbed at a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018.

The Biden administration initially intervened in Fuld’s case and another one brought by 11 American families who sued the Palestinian leadership groups and were awarded $650 million in a 2025 trial for several attacks in Israel.

June 12 (UPI) — The Supreme Court brought back a lawsuit against the FBI over a mishandled home raid from 2017 in Atlanta on Thursday.

A unanimous decision moved the case over an incident in which federal agents broke through the door of Trina Martin’s home with a search warrant at the wrong address, back to a lower court to look at it again to see if the lawsuit can move forward.

Martin sued the government for assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, after the FBI entered her home, where she lived with her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt and 7-year-old son Gabe Watson, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member.

The suit alleged that agents entered the home with their guns drawn and set of a flash bang that startled the family and caused Gabe to scream.

The Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge in Atlanta and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong to dismiss the suit, ordering them to determine whether the discretionary-function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act in 2019, under which the suit was filed, would allow the case to go forward.

The justices did not answer the question, but allowed the plaintiffs to argue it in the lower courts.

“It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.

“We readily acknowledge that different lower courts have taken different views of the discretionary function exception,” Gorsuch continued.”We acknowledge, too, that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one.”

During the raid Martin’s former boyfriend was handcuffed and she wanted to go to her son. She wasn’t allowed to move and the 7-year-old woke up to see agents with guns in his room.

After the agents realized their mistake they left the house and their supervisor came back to apologize.

The FBI had an arrest warrant out for Joseph Riley. After they left Martin’s house, FBI raided Riley’s house and arrested him.

Pattrick Jaicomo, Martin’s lawyer in a statement said the court was right to revive the Martin family’s case

“The Court’s decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms-intentional and negligent alike,” he said. “We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights.”