Federal Judge Rules Florida Violated Medicaid Recipients Rights With Confusing Termination Notices

January 6, 2026

A federal judge has ruled that the State of Florida violated the rights of Medicaid recipients by using confusing and inadequate notices when ending health coverage, particularly during the large-scale “unwinding” of Medicaid eligibility that followed the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The ruling found that Florida’s termination notices failed to clearly explain why Medicaid coverage was being discontinued and did not provide sufficient guidance on how enrollees could challenge or appeal those decisions. As a result, the court concluded that the state did not meet constitutional due-process requirements designed to protect people who rely on government health benefits.

Background of the Case

The decision stems from a federal class action lawsuit, Chianne D. et al. v. Weida, filed in August 2023 by the Florida Health Justice Project and the National Health Law Program. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Medicaid recipients who lost coverage during eligibility redeterminations, many of whom argued they were still eligible but were unable to understand or contest the state’s notices.

At issue was Florida’s handling of Medicaid “redeterminations,” a process restarted nationwide in 2023 after the federal government ended a pandemic-era policy that had temporarily prohibited states from disenrolling people from Medicaid. Once that continuous coverage requirement expired, states resumed eligibility checks, resulting in millions of people across the country losing Medicaid coverage—often for procedural reasons such as missing paperwork, rather than true ineligibility.

Arguments in Court

Plaintiffs argued that Florida officials had known since at least 2018 that the state’s Medicaid notices were confusing and insufficient, yet continued to use them. According to the lawsuit, the notices were vague, relied on coded language, and failed to clearly state the specific reason coverage was ending or whether recipients might still qualify under a different eligibility category.

Testimony during the trial highlighted how recipients struggled to decipher the notices, leaving many unaware of their right to appeal or unsure how to fix errors that could have preserved their coverage.

The state of Florida defended its process, arguing that the notices were legally sufficient and that additional communications, along with federal approval of its redetermination plan, met required standards. State attorneys maintained that recipients were given enough information to understand and respond to eligibility decisions.

The judge ultimately disagreed, siding with plaintiffs and concluding that the notices did not provide the clarity required under federal law.

Why the Ruling Matters

Federal courts have long held that when a government agency terminates essential benefits like Medicaid, recipients must receive clear and understandable notice. That notice must explain what action is being taken, why it is happening, and how the individual can challenge the decision if it is incorrect.

The ruling suggests Florida’s notice process fell short of these standards, potentially leading eligible individuals to lose access to critical health services such as postpartum care, prescription medications, preventive services, and vaccinations.

Broader Implications

Florida’s case is part of a broader national pattern. States across the country have faced legal challenges over how Medicaid unwinding has been carried out, with advocates arguing that confusing communications and administrative barriers have caused eligible people to lose coverage unnecessarily.

The decision represents one of the most significant legal rebukes of a state’s Medicaid redetermination process and could prompt changes to how Florida—and potentially other states—communicate eligibility decisions to Medicaid recipients moving forward.