Access to Justice

Supreme Court Decision A Victory for the Constitution and For Millions Who Rely On Medicaid

Washington, DC – On news this morning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wos v. EMA (formerly Delia v. EMA), holding that a North Carolina statute is preempted by the federal Medicaid law, the Director of Constitutional Accountability Center’s Access to Courts program, Rochelle Bobroff, released the following statement:

 

“Today’s majority opinion is a huge victory for the 62 million Americans – one out of every five – who depend on Medicaid for access to health care. This ruling makes clear that the Medicaid statute is as much a part of the Federal Code as any other, and displaces state laws that conflict with the program.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

*  CAC’s “friend of the court” brief in Delia (Wos) v. EMA, together with AARP in support of Respondent, identified by the Court as E.M.A., “a child who was born with multiple serious birth injuries”: http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/delia-Amicus-Brief-AARP-CAC.pdf 

 

*  “A Lurking Threat to Federal Spending Clause Programs,” Rochelle Bobroff, January 3, 2013: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/1757/lurking-threat-federal-spending-clause-programs 

 

*  “The Medicaid Program at a Glance,” Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, March 2013: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7235-06.pd

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Access to Justice

Rule of Law
September 8, 2024

Justice delayed is political: Trump’s election interference case must continue ahead of the election

Salon
The Supreme Court conservative majority’s opinion in Trump v. United States has rightly drawn considerable criticism.  Its...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Donald K. Sherman
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 5, 2024

“Moore v. Harper, Evasion, and the Ordinary Bounds of Judicial Review”

Election Law Blog
David Gans, Brianne Gorod, and Anna Jessurun have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Boston College Law Review)....
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans, Anna Jessurun, Rick Hasen
Rule of Law
September 5, 2024

Reflections on my Kendall Fellowship

On my first day at the Constitutional Accountability Center, I worked on a brief about...
By: Jess Zalph
Rule of Law
September 2, 2024

Transgender rights, ghost guns, porn ID cases on Supreme Court docket; stakes high in next term

The Washington Times
The Supreme Court is still on its three-month summer recess but already has loaded its docket with...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Alex Swoyer
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202

In In re: Georgia Senate Bill 202, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.