ACLJ Files Brief Urging Court of Appeals To Issue Emergency Stay of Judge’s Dangerously Flawed Ruling Blocking the Defunding of Planned Parenthood

The ACLJ has filed a powerful amicus brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, defending Congress’ constitutional authority to refuse funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. This case, Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., represents far more than a dispute over government funding – it strikes at the heart of our constitutional separation of powers and America’s commitment to protecting life.

As we previously explained:

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts granted a partial preliminary injunction allowing approximately 25% of Planned Parenthood’s affiliates to still receive Medicaid funding. We filed a crucial amicus brief in this case and are standing firm in the defense of the unborn.

The judge has now doubled down. In a shocking 58-page decision, she granted a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Section 71113 of the 2025 Reconciliation Act (the “Big Beautiful Bill”)—legislation that would have finally ended federal Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates. Instead of [the] partial order, this decision awards funding to all Planned Parenthood affiliates.

This judicial activism represents nothing less than a direct assault on the will of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress, who voted to stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion.

Protecting Life Through Constitutional Governance

At the ACLJ, our dedication to the sanctity of life has guided our legal advocacy for decades. This principle isn’t merely a policy preference – it’s a fundamental recognition that all human life, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and worth. When Congress exercises its constitutional authority to direct taxpayer dollars away from organizations that perform abortions, it reflects the deeply held values of millions of Americans who believe their tax dollars should not subsidize the taking of innocent life.

The case before the First Circuit exemplifies why the ACLJ exists: to defend constitutional liberties while upholding the sanctity of life. Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit represents an unprecedented assault on both principles, demanding that courts force Congress to subsidize abortion providers against its express legislative will.

If you don’t believe your tax dollars should fund Planned Parenthood, we need your voice in this effort. Add your name to the petition: Defund Planned Parenthood Now. 

No Constitutional Right to Taxpayer Subsidies

Our brief makes a fundamental point that Planned Parenthood desperately wants to obscure: There is no constitutional right to government subsidies. The Supreme Court established this principle decades ago and has reaffirmed it consistently, even during the Roe v. Wade era.

When Americans elect representatives who prioritize protecting life over funding abortion providers, those policy choices must be respected. The Constitution does not transform every legal activity into a taxpayer-funded entitlement, and courts cannot conscript unwilling taxpayers to subsidize practices they find morally objectionable.

Planned Parenthood’s argument ignores a critical reality that the Supreme Court has acknowledged: Money is fungible. When the government provides funding to an organization for one purpose, those funds free up other resources that can be redirected toward activities the government prefers not to support.

Congress has consistently sought to ensure that federal dollars do not indirectly subsidize abortions through this fungibility principle. When Planned Parenthood receives Medicaid reimbursements for family planning services, that money allows the organization to redirect other funds toward performing abortions. Congress has every right – indeed, the responsibility to taxpayers who oppose abortion – to prevent this indirect subsidization of abortion providers.

The ACLJ has long championed policies that recognize this reality. Supporting organizations that perform abortions, even for other services, necessarily supports their overall mission of ending preborn lives. Congress’ decision to defund Planned Parenthood reflects a legitimate and necessary policy choice to ensure federal dollars promote life rather than destroy it.

Rejecting Baseless Bill of Attainder Claims

Planned Parenthood’s desperate attempt to characterize congressional funding decisions as a “bill of attainder” demonstrates the weakness of their position. Bills of attainder historically involved legislative punishment without trial – typically death or the extinction of civil rights. Congress’ decision not to subsidize abortion providers involves no punishment whatsoever.

Planned Parenthood remains free to operate, employ staff, and provide services. No one is barred from working there or prohibited from seeking their services. Congress has simply decided not to pay for its activities with taxpayer dollars – a decision well within legislative authority.

Every time Congress makes funding choices – supporting some activities while declining to fund others – it could face similar challenges if Planned Parenthood’s theory prevailed. This would transform every appropriations decision into potential constitutional litigation, undermining the democratic process and separation of powers.

Defending Separation of Powers

Perhaps most troubling about Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit is its assault on constitutional separation of powers. The Appropriations Clause could not be clearer: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This power belongs exclusively to Congress, not to courts or executive agencies.

Planned Parenthood seeks the extraordinary relief of compelling Congress to spend funds it has explicitly declined to appropriate. If successful, this lawsuit would transform courts from interpreters of law into super-legislators empowered to direct public spending according to judicial policy preferences rather than democratic choices.

The ACLJ has consistently defended the constitutional design that places spending authority with the branch most accountable to the people whose money is at stake. Courts that attempt to force congressional appropriations violate this fundamental principle and threaten the delicate balance of powers that protects American democracy.

A Broader Fight for Life and Liberty

This case represents more than a dispute over Planned Parenthood’s funding – it’s about whether America will remain committed to both constitutional governance and the protection of innocent life. The ACLJ’s brief demonstrates that these principles work together, not against each other.

When Congress exercises its constitutional authority to direct funding toward life-affirming healthcare while refusing to subsidize abortion providers, it honors both the democratic process and the fundamental truth that every human life possesses inherent worth. The ACLJ will continue standing strong for these principles, defending the constitutional framework that makes ordered liberty possible while never wavering in our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable among us.