On July 16, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s charity care requirement—which mandates that hospitals must treat patients regardless of their ability to pay—does not amount to unconstitutional per se or regulatory taking. The Court upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by fourteen hospitals, both nonprofit and for-profit, who argued that the charity care requirement forced them to give up their property without just compensation.
The hospitals challenged the charity care program, arguing that that the subsidies provided under the program are insufficient to cover care costs and that complying with the law amounts to a taking. The Court disagreed, noting that hospitals maintain control of their resources and make their own allocation decisions.
Justice Douglas M. Fasciale, writing for the court, emphasized that while it may seem unfair for hospitals to bear these costs, setting policy is the legislature’s role. The charity care program does not require hospitals to hand over or physically set aside property for the state or others, nor does it deprive them of economically beneficial use of their property.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin praised the decision, saying it supports the principle that no one should be denied care due to inability to pay. The hospitals’ attorneys said they are considering appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the ruling contradicts recent federal decisions on physical takings.
The case is Englewood Hospital & Medical Center et al. v. The State of New Jersey et al., case number 089696. The opinion is available here.
