Supreme Court Case Could Sever Medicaid Lifeline

Shares fell significantly in the health care sector as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could have far-reaching implications for Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance program for low-income individuals and families. The case, Landor v. Louisiana, centers on a dispute between a Rastafarian inmate and prison officials who forcibly shaved his head, violating federal law protecting prisoners' religious rights. During oral arguments, the justices seemed more concerned with the potential impact of a ruling on Medicaid than with the merits of the case itself. The case has sparked debate over the limits of federal power and the scope of religious freedom protections. The justices' focus on Medicaid has raised concerns that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could have unintended consequences for the program. According to Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, the justices' priorities are unusual. "It's hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of a federal law than what happened to Damon Landor," Millhiser said. "Landor is Rastafarian and does not cut his hair as part of his religious practice. While serving a five-month prison sentence on drug charges, however, Louisiana prison officials handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head. They did so, moreover, despite the fact that Landor brought a copy of a federal court decision establishing that he had a right, under federal religious liberty law, to keep his hair long while incarcerated." The case has its roots in a 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) does not apply to prisoners. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case, with oral arguments taking place on November 10, 2025. The justices' questions during the hearing suggested that they are grappling with the implications of a ruling on Medicaid, which is a joint federal-state program that provides health insurance to millions of low-income individuals and families. The potential impact on Medicaid is a concern for many advocates, who fear that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could lead to a significant reduction in federal funding for the program. "If the court were to rule that RFRA applies to prisoners, it could have far-reaching implications for Medicaid," said a spokesperson for the National Association of Medicaid Directors. "We're concerned that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could lead to a significant reduction in federal funding for the program, which would have devastating consequences for low-income individuals and families who rely on Medicaid for their health care." The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, with a decision expected in the coming months. The justices' focus on Medicaid has raised concerns that a ruling in favor of the plaintiff could have unintended consequences for the program, and advocates are urging the court to consider the potential impact on low-income individuals and families who rely on Medicaid for their health care.