Health law issues at the Supreme Court

There's a handful of cases before SCOTUS that have been argued and, with only a couple of weeks left in the Term, are still awaiting decision. At the bottom of this post, I've listed health law cases that will be argued during the 2025 Term.

1. Ker:r v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, No. 23-1275: Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Argued: April 2, 2025.
2. United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477: Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Argued: Dec. 4, 2024.

• There's an FDA case on the list of cases awaiting decision, but the issue is a technical, federal procedure one: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the D.C. Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer's products that is located within that circuit. FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 23-1187.

The Court has granted review in 19 cases to be heard in the next Term, of which XX have a health law angle:

1. Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539: In this conversion-therapy case, the issue is whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. At least 20 states have similar laws. Review granted: March 10, 2025.
2. First Choice Women's Resource v. Platkin, No. 24-781: (From SCOTUSBlog:) "Whether a group of crisis pregnancy centers – faith-based nonprofits that hold themselves out as healthcare clinics and often provide material support to pregnant women, but try to persuade them not to have an abortion – can go to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of a subpoena from a state attorney general, or whether they must instead pursue those claims in state court. . . . This case arose from an investigation by the state’s Division of Consumer Affairs into whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers was misleading donors and potential clients – by, for example, omitting information about its mission on its client-facing websites and by indicating that ultrasounds are 'generally required' before a medication abortion, although they are not." Review granted: June 16, 2025.