MAJOR VICTORY: Federal Court Upholds Congressional Power To Defund Abortion Industry

In a resounding victory for constitutional principles and the rule of law, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker just delivered a decisive blow to the abortion industry’s latest attempt to circumvent the democratic process and force taxpayers to subsidize their operations.

In Family Planning Association of Maine v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the court correctly denieda preliminary injunction that would have blocked implementation of the “Big Beautiful Bill’s” provision that defunds major abortion providers. This victory comes alongside the parallel Massachusetts case, Planned Parenthood v. Kennedy, where Planned Parenthood Federation of America challenged the same legislation. While a federal judge initially ruled in Planned Parenthood’s favor, the ACLJ is helping fight that decision on appeal with an amicus there too.

The coordinated legal assault by the abortion industry across multiple federal districts demonstrates the industry’s desperation to maintain its taxpayer funding pipeline through any available avenue. However, Judge Walker’s thorough analysis in the Maine case provides a strong constitutional foundation that should guide other courts facing similar challenges and should help lead to the decision in Massachusetts being overturned. The sad irony and absurdity is that right now, Planned Parenthood’s operations in Maine still get funding because of the Massachusetts case order, but Maine Family Planning does not.

The ACLJ has filed critical amicus briefs in these cases, arguing that Congress has both the constitutional authority and moral obligation to ensure federal tax dollars do not prop up the abortion industry. We will continue to fight in the Massachusetts case wherever it may lead.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

This case represents far more than a mere funding dispute – it strikes at the heart of whether unelected judges can override the clearly expressed will of the American people through their democratically elected representatives in Congress.

The “Big Beautiful Bill,” signed into law earlier this year, withdrew federal Medicaid funding from certain “prohibited entities” – specifically targeting large, well-funded abortion providers like Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood.

Judge Walker’s opinion demonstrates a refreshing commitment to constitutional text, structure, and precedent over judicial activism. As he correctly noted, “The Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power of the purse,” and this fundamental principle “means that Congress, not the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch, has the authority to determine how to spend, or not spend, the Nation’s dollars.”

The judge properly applied the rational basis test – the appropriate standard of constitutional review for this type of spending decision – and found that Congress had multiple rational justifications for its actions. These include:

• Reducing the number of abortion providers participating in federal programs
• Achieving a net reduction in abortions by withdrawing federal subsidies
• Preventing federal dollars from indirectly supporting abortion operations through overhead and operational costs
• Focusing on the largest providers who perform the highest proportion of abortions

Perhaps most importantly, Judge Walker recognized that in the post-Dobbs era, abortion is no longer considered a constitutional right. He emphasized that, as the Supreme Court held in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, “the permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

The Abortion Industry’s Desperate Legal Strategy Fails

Maine Family Planning’s legal challenge epitomizes the abortion industry’s post-Dobbs strategy: When you can’t win in the democratic process, run to friendly federal judges and claim constitutional violation. This approach has repeatedly failed, and Judge Walker’s decision explains why.

The ACLJ’s amicus brief in this case helped crystallize the constitutional issues at stake and provided the court with crucial legal precedent supporting Congress’s spending power. Our brief emphasized several key points:

Our first argument demolished the myth of a “right to subsidies.” As we demonstrated through extensive Supreme Court precedent, there is simply no constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies for abortion providers. We emphasized the fundamental distinction between governmental interference with conduct and governmental decisions about what activities merit public funding.

We also highlighted a critical reality that abortion advocates consistently ignore: Money is fungible. As we argued, “Money MFP receives from Medicaid to subsidize one service is money that it can then utilize to perform another action, namely, abortion.” This indirect subsidization is precisely what Congress sought to prevent – and has every right to prevent under decades of Supreme Court precedent. Judge Walker made a similar point, correctly observing that “a prohibition on the manner in which federal dollars are expended once received is not the same as a prohibition on the receipt of federal funds in the first instance.”

Our second argument focused on the separation of powers crisis that would result from granting Maine Family Planning’s unprecedented request. We demonstrated that compelling Congress to spend money it has specifically declined to appropriate would violate the Appropriations Clause and invert our constitutional design. As we argued: “Courts cannot compel Congress to spend money any more than Congress can compel courts to decide cases.”

The ACLJ brief warned that granting such relief would “transform federal judges into super-legislators empowered to redirect public resources according to judicial rather than legislative priorities” – precisely the kind of judicial overreach our constitutional system was designed to prevent. Judge Walker’s opinion clearly reflects the constitutional principles our brief championed, demonstrating once again that when courts properly apply constitutional text and precedent, the rule of law prevails over activist judicial preferences. His decision echoes our brief’s warning, and perhaps pulled from it: “[T]he Judicial Branch, despite much generated confusion on this basic point, does not serve as an omnibus super-legislature to sit in final judgment as to which policy outcomes it prefers. That judgment rests with the people.”

As Judge Walker powerfully concluded: “It would be a special kind of judicial hubris to declare that the public interest has been undermined by the public.”

Moving Forward: Democracy in Action

The abortion lobby will undoubtedly appeal this decision, continuing its desperate attempt to force taxpayers to subsidize its operations. But Judge Walker’s thorough, well-reasoned opinion provides a strong foundation for upholding congressional authority on appeal.

More importantly, this case demonstrates that the constitutional framework established by the Founding Fathers – with its careful separation of powers and democratic accountability – continues to function as intended. When the American people elect representatives who promise to stop subsidizing the abortion industry, those representatives have both the authority and obligation to fulfill that promise.

This victory represents a crucial step toward ensuring that no American is forced to subsidize the destruction of innocent human life through their tax dollars. The fight continues, especially in fighting Planned Parenthood’s agenda in Massachusetts.