--- title: "Harris v. McRae" description: "The Hyde Amendment is constitutional. States participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement is unavailable. The government's decision not to fund an activity does not infringe a constitutional right." type: "case" court: "U.S. Supreme Court" decided: "1980-06-30" citation: "448 U.S. 297 (1980)" docket: "79-1268" status: "Good law" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/harris-v-mcrae-1980.html" --- # Harris v. McRae _Full caption: Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McRae et al._ **Citation:** 448 U.S. 297 (1980) · **Docket No.** 79-1268 **Status:** Good law | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Court | U.S. Supreme Court | | Argued | April 21, 1980 | | Decided | June 30, 1980 | | Vote | 5-4 | | Majority author | Stewart, J. | | Joined by | Burger, C.J.; White, Powell, Rehnquist, JJ. | ## Question presented Whether the Hyde Amendment — restricting federal Medicaid funding for abortion except when the mother's life is endangered — violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process guarantees or the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. ## Holding The Hyde Amendment is constitutional. States participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement is unavailable. The government's decision not to fund an activity does not infringe a constitutional right. ## Reasoning Justice Stewart held that while the liberty guarantee protects against unwarranted government interference with reproductive choice, it does not confer 'an entitlement to such funds as may be necessary to realize all advantages of that freedom.' Poverty is not a suspect classification. The Amendment's coincidence with Roman Catholic teaching does not establish religion. ## Opinions ### Majority — Stewart, J. _Joined by Burger, C.J.; White, Powell, Rehnquist, JJ._ The Hyde Amendment is constitutional. States participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement is unavailable. The government's decision not to fund an activity does not infringe a constitutional right. ### Concurrence — White, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred separately. ### Dissent — Brennan, J. _Joined by Marshall, Blackmun, JJ._ Argued the Hyde Amendment coerced poor women away from constitutionally protected choices. ### Dissent — Marshall, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Argued the ruling discriminated against poor women in exercising a fundamental right. ### Dissent — Blackmun, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Wrote sharp separate dissent. ### Dissent — Stevens, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Read his dissent from the bench — highly unusual and signaling deep opposition. ## Key quotes > "It simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices." > — Stewart, J. (majority) · 448 U.S. at 316 > "Although government may not place obstacles in the path of a woman's exercise of her freedom of choice, it need not remove those not of its own creation, and indigency falls in the latter category." > — Stewart, J. (majority) · 448 U.S. at 316 > "By encouraging childbirth except in the most urgent circumstances, [the Hyde Amendment] is rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of protecting potential life." > — Stewart, J. (majority) · 448 U.S. at 325 ## Practical effect Federal Medicaid funding for abortion permanently restricted. The Hyde Amendment has been renewed annually since 1976 (in various forms) and, per NRLC estimates, has prevented over 2 million abortions. Trump EO 14182 (2025) reinstated aggressive enforcement. ## Perspectives The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case. ### Abolitionist framing Abolitionists broadly support Harris v. McRae as ensuring taxpayer dollars cannot fund abortion. Some abolitionists critique the case as merely 'defunding' rather than 'prohibiting' — which they view as inadequate. ### Mainstream pro-life framing One of the most significant pro-life legislative and judicial victories. The Hyde Amendment framework became a foundational element of pro-life strategy. ### Pro-choice framing Sharply criticized as creating a two-tier system where poor women effectively lose access to abortion. ## Significance Foundational precedent enabling Hyde Amendment (~2 million abortions estimated prevented). Framework extends to Rust v. Sullivan and beyond. | Measure | Score | | --- | --- | | Overall significance | 7 / 10 | | Legal precedential weight | 7 | | Practical impact on access | 8 | | Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 5 | | Enduring relevance, 2026 | 8 | ## Sources ### Primary sources - [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/297](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/297/) - [law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/297](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/297) ### Secondary sources - [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._McRae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._McRae) ## Related cases **Cites earlier cases:** - Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977) - Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977) - [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md) **Cited by later cases:** - [Rust v. Sullivan (1991)](rust-v-sullivan-1991.md) - [Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)](webster-v-reproductive-health-services-1989.md) ## Notes Justice Stevens read his dissent from the bench — a rare gesture signaling deep disagreement.