We'll hear an argument this morning in case 231275 Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.

Mr. Birch.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

In our Federalist system, the legitimacy of Congress's exercise of its spending power

depends on a state's knowing acceptance of funding conditions.

As even respondents concede, an individual focus in

mandatory language are not enough. Gonzaga held that clear rights-creating language is critical

to creating private rights. Congress did not use clear rights-creating language in the any

qualified provider provision. Consider its text and structure. First, it does not use the word right

or its functional equivalent, nor does it use words with a deeply rooted rights-creating

pedigree, like the Fifth Amendment's no person shall. That lack should be dispositive. Second,

the provision speaks merely of obtaining a benefit from a third party, unlike traditional rights-creating

language, which confers a right directly. Third, it would allow the regulated entity, here a

state, to define the scope of the alleged right it is not allowed to violate by deciding

which providers are qualified. Fourth, the provision does not reside in a Bill of Rights.

It's one of 87 items on a list of planned contents that the Secretary must look for before

approving a plan.

Fifth, it is unusual to find a right in a substantial compliance regime where a sizable

minority of beneficiaries may fail to receive the offered benefit.

And finally, Congress knows how to clearly confer a private right to choose a provider, because

it did so in FINRA's analogous provision, which appears in a separate bill of rights and uses

rights-creating language connected to the beneficiary and directed to the regulated entity, a facility.

...