ACLJ Defending Presidential Authority To End Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

On Monday, the ACLJ filed a powerful amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, taking a bold stand against the latest outrageous attempt by liberal states to undermine President Trump’s constitutional authority and pro-life policies. A federal judge has issued a broad order requiring the Trump Administration to continue to spend funds, regardless of the constitutional separation of powers and the President’s authority to ensure that federal funds are spent in accordance with the law. We have taken a stand in federal appeals court.

The Left’s Latest Legal Attack on President Trump

Make no mistake – what we’re witnessing is nothing short of a coordinated legal assault on presidential authority and the protection of innocent human life. Liberal states, led by New York, have launched a baseless lawsuit challenging President Trump’s efforts to enforce the Hyde Amendment and ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

In January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14182, “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” to finally put an end to the previous Administration’s deliberate and systematic violation of this crucial pro-life protection. For years, the Biden Administration blatantly circumvented the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition on taxpayer funding for abortion, embedding “forced taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a wide variety of Federal programs.”

This Executive order was a decisive victory for life and the rule of law – and that’s precisely why the radical abortion lobby and their allies in blue states immediately moved to block it and other Executive orders that pause funding through the courts.

The Left’s Legal Strategy: Deceptive and Desperate

The states’ legal strategy is as dishonest as it is desperate. Rather than directly challenging President Trump’s legitimate Executive orders, they’ve targeted a now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum that merely implemented these orders.

This OMB memo simply directed federal agencies to temporarily pause certain funding programs potentially affected by the Executive orders while conducting a review to ensure compliance with the law – including the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition on using taxpayer dollars for abortion. Importantly, this pause only applied to programs “implicated by the executive orders” and only “to the extent permissible under applicable law.”

Our brief systematically explained why a lawsuit against this memo is improper:

1. The case is MOOT: The states challenged an OMB memo that has already been rescinded. There’s literally nothing left to enjoin! Every item in their prayer for relief specifically targeted the now-rescinded memo.
2. The memo was NEVER a final agency action: Even before it was rescinded, the OMB memo didn’t determine any legal consequences. It merely instructed agencies to review their programs and pause funding only where legally permissible and only for programs implicated by the Executive orders.
3. The district court’s ruling is a RADICAL overreach: Instead of limiting its injunction to the challenged memo, the district court took the extraordinary step of enjoining “all funding freezes dictated, described, or implied by Executive Orders” – effectively blocking Executive orders that were never even challenged in the complaint, including the order implementing the Hyde Amendment.

A Dangerous Attack on Constitutional Authority

This case represents a direct assault on the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. As our brief powerfully argues, quoting The Federalist Papers: “‘No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than’ the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

The President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” unquestionably includes ensuring that federal funds are disbursed in accordance with congressional mandates – especially the Hyde Amendment. When the district court issues a sweeping injunction against all “funding freezes,” it directly undermines the President’s core constitutional authority.

As we remind the court: “[C]ourts have ‘no power to control [the President’s] discretion’ when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution.” The district court’s overreach cannot stand.

The Stakes: Life, Liberty, and Constitutional Governance

Make no mistake – this case has profound implications that go far beyond procedural technicalities. It strikes at the heart of our constitutional system and the protection of innocent human life.

For decades, the Hyde Amendment has stood as a crucial firewall preventing American taxpayers from being forced to fund the taking of innocent human life through abortion. When President Trump issued his Executive order to enforce this vital protection, he fulfilled his constitutional duty and his promise to the American people.

The ACLJ Will Not Back Down

At the ACLJ, we will never stop fighting for life and constitutional principles. Our legal team has meticulously crafted an airtight legal argument exposing the fatal flaws in the states’ case and defending the President’s lawful authority.

We’re calling on the First Circuit to immediately grant the government’s motion to stay this outrageous preliminary injunction. The President must be allowed to fulfill his constitutional duties, including enforcing the Hyde Amendment and ensuring taxpayer dollars aren’t misused. We’re in this fight for the long haul, and we won’t back down.