ACLJ Files Third Brief Supporting Congress’ Authority To Defund Planned Parenthood

The ACLJ has filed its third amicus brief in the ongoing constitutional battle over Congress’ decision to defund Planned Parenthood, this time supporting the government’s emergency motion to stay preliminary injunctions at the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

This case represents a fundamental challenge to Congress’ constitutional authority over federal spending. After President Trump signed the “Big Beautiful Bill” on July 4, 2025, Planned Parenthood immediately launched a multipronged constitutional attack, claiming that Section 71113 – which prohibits certain abortion providers from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursements – violates the Bill of Attainder Clause, First Amendment associational rights, and Equal Protection guarantees. The ACLJ is fighting back to defend congressional authority to defund Planned Parenthood.

Take action with us. Add your name to our petition: Defund Planned Parenthood NOW.

The Legal Battle Unfolds

The litigation has moved at breakneck speed. Within just three days of the law’s enactment, Planned Parenthood filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts. Despite the government’s objections and the ACLJ’s first amicus brief, District Judge Indira Talwani granted not one but two preliminary injunctions – first on July 21 protecting some Planned Parenthood affiliates, then expanding the injunction on July 28 to cover all Planned Parenthood organizations nationwide.

Most recently, on August 29, Judge Talwani denied the government’s motion to stay these injunctions, setting up the current appeal to the First Circuit. The government now faces an October 1 deadline when the defunding provision takes effect.

ACLJ’s Constitutional Arguments

We filed our third amicus brief yesterday in the case, supporting the Trump Administration’s motion to stay. In this brief, the ACLJ makes three critical constitutional points:

First, there is no constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies for abortion providers. As we detail extensively, Supreme Court precedent from Maher v. Roe through Harris v. McRae to Rust v. Sullivan has consistently held that the government has no obligation to fund activities that run counter to its policy judgments. Even when the Court wrongly recognized a “right” to abortion in Roe, it never required taxpayer funding for abortion or abortion providers.

Second, Congress’ funding decision does not constitute a Bill of Attainder. The Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause prohibits legislative punishment without trial, not legislative decisions about spending priorities. Congress has not banned Planned Parenthood from operating or punished anyone – it has simply declined to subsidize certain activities with taxpayer funds. This represents a legitimate exercise of legislative authority, not constitutional punishment.

Third, compelling Congress to fund Planned Parenthood would violate the separation of powers. Perhaps most importantly, Planned Parenthood seeks the extraordinary remedy of forcing Congress to spend money it specifically voted not to spend. This would invert our constitutional design. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 58, the “power over the purse” is “the most complete and effectual weapon” the Constitution gives to “the immediate representatives of the people.” The Appropriations Clause could not be clearer: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

The Broader Policy Context

Congress did not act in a vacuum when it defunded Planned Parenthood. Multiple states have reached similar conclusions about funding abortion providers based on their assessments of healthcare priorities and the value of promoting life. From Texas to Arkansas to Indiana, state governments have determined that taxpayer funds are better allocated to healthcare providers that do not perform abortions.

Money is fungible – funds that subsidize Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services free up other resources that can be redirected toward abortion activities. Congress has consistently sought to ensure federal dollars do not indirectly subsidize abortions, a policy choice well within its constitutional authority.

What Happens Next

The First Circuit Court of Appeals now faces a critical decision with national implications. Will it respect Congress’ constitutional authority over federal spending, or will it allow federal judges to effectively rewrite appropriations bills according to their own policy preferences?

The government has requested expedited review as the October 1 effective date approaches. If the First Circuit denies the stay, the government may seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The ACLJ is preparing to support the government in an amicus at the Supreme Court. The underlying constitutional questions – about congressional power, the separation of powers, and the limits of judicial authority – will likely require ultimate resolution by the nation’s highest Court.

Defending Constitutional Principles

The ACLJ’s involvement in this case reflects our fundamental commitment to defending the Constitution’s original design and protecting the separation of powers. When federal courts start compelling Congress to spend money it has specifically voted not to spend, they exceed their proper constitutional role and threaten the democratic process itself.

Congress, accountable to the American people through regular elections, must retain its exclusive authority over the federal purse. No unelected federal judge should be empowered to override the spending decisions made by the people’s elected representatives, particularly when those decisions reflect legitimate policy judgments about the value and dignity of human life.

Act with us as we hold judges accountable – sign: Defund Planned Parenthood NOW.