Same Federal Judge Once AGAIN Blocks Defunding of Planned Parenthood – ACLJ Is Preparing To Engage

In yet another sweeping order, Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts has once again stepped in to block Congress’ decision to defund the abortion industry by preventing federal Medicaid dollars from flowing to abortion-performing organizations like Planned Parenthood. In a 45-page ruling issued this week, the court granted a preliminary injunction to 22 states and the District of Columbia, temporarily halting enforcement of Section 71113 of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act. 

If the judge’s name sounds familiar, it should. This is the same judge who, just months ago, issued two extraordinarily broad injunctions in favor of Planned Parenthood – first shielding a subset of affiliates from Congress’ defunding statute, and then expanding her order to cover every Planned Parenthood affiliate nationwide.

The ACLJ immediately entered that litigation, filing multiple amicus briefs explaining why Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it chose to restrict federal Medicaid funds from going to organizations that perform elective abortions. We warned then that the district court’s reasoning was dangerously flawed and would, if left uncorrected, upend Congress’ control of federal spending.

Take action with us as we fight to prevent tax dollars from funding abortion. Add your name to the petition: Defund Planned Parenthood NOW.

The First Circuit ultimately granted a stay – recognizing the gravity of Congress’ spending power and the weakness of the district court’s legal analysis. But even with that stay in place, another case has been filed, this time by 22 states and the District of Columbia – led by California. They sued the federal government, arguing that Section 71113 was too vague and too burdensome for states to administer.

Judge Talwani again sided with the abortion industry.

Her ruling rests on the Spending Clause. Under Supreme Court precedent, when Congress imposes conditions on federal funding, it must speak with sufficient clarity so states may knowingly accept the terms. According to the district court, Section 71113 did not meet that standard. The judge concluded that states lacked clarity on who qualifies as a “prohibited entity,” how to assess multistate Medicaid expenditures, and what it means for a provider to be “primarily engaged” in certain reproductive health services.

But none of this means Congress lacks the authority to direct where federal dollars may flow. It doesn’t mean abortion providers have a constitutional entitlement to Medicaid reimbursements. And it certainly doesn’t mean taxpayers must – against their will – subsidize organizations whose business model includes elective abortion. Congress’ intent was unmistakable: Federal Medicaid dollars should not subsidize entities that perform abortions outside the narrow bounds of the Hyde Amendment. That condition is not in any way ambiguous; it is clear.

The ACLJ plans to file an amicus brief, urging that this unconstitutional injunction be corrected. We have been fully engaged at every stage of this battle – filing amicus briefs in the Planned Parenthood case as well as the case in Maine, urging the appellate court to correct the district court’s missteps, and standing for the right to life. Altogether, we’ve filed an unprecedented six amicus briefs so far on this issue.

Congress has the unquestioned constitutional authority to decide how federal dollars are allocated. The judiciary does not get to override those decisions or insulate favored organizations from the consequences of federal policy. Especially not when the organization at issue is the nation’s largest abortion provider.

As this case moves forward, we will keep you updated. When the appellate window opens, the ACLJ will once again file an amicus brief – because Congress’ spending authority and the integrity of our constitutional structure must be defended.

Take action with us. Sign our petition: Defund Planned Parenthood NOW.