Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic should be one of the easiest cases the Supreme Court will decide this year. A federal law requires every state’s Medicaid program to ensure that “any individual eligible for medical assistance” may obtain that care from a competent provider of their choice. The question in Medina is whether that statute means anything, or whether it is a paper tiger that cannot be meaningfully enforced.

In fairness, the Supreme Court’s rules laying out when a federal Medicaid statute can be enforced through private lawsuits are somewhat complicated, but the 2023 decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski clarified those rules. There is now no serious argument that that law enabling Medicaid patients to choose their providers cannot be enforced.

But, while the law in Medina is clear, the politics are terrible. The specific issue in Medina is whether South Carolina can cut health providers that also provide abortions out of its Medicaid program (Medicaid funds generally cannot be spent on abortions, but they can be spent on non-abortion care provided by Planned Parenthood). And the Supreme Court has a 6-3 Republican majority.

So many of the Court’s Republicans seemed to spend Wednesday’s argument looking for a way to get around cases like Talevski. It’s far from clear whether three key justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were persuaded by the anti-Medicaid arguments in this case. But, at times, it sure seemed like they wanted to be persuaded.

That leaves the outcome in Medina uncertain. If I absolutely had to bet on the........

© Vox