Judge’s injunction orders government to fund Planned Parenthood as lawsuit proceeds

A U.S District judge has released a 36-page memorandum and order putting in place a preliminary injunction against the defunding of Planned Parenthood passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in the “Big Beautiful Bill” on July 4. A provision in the legislation disqualified elective abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from federal Medicaid funding for one year.

On July 21, Obama-appointed Boston U.S. district judge Indira Talwani issued the injunction granting Planned Parenthood’s request to continue to block the defunding provision while its lawsuit against the Trump administration proceeds.

Key Takeaways:

• Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani believes that Planned Parenthood’s First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the budget reconciliation bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

• Talwani’s ruling still allows the Trump administration to enforce the defunding provision against other abortion providers.

• Talwani has now issued a preliminary injunction as opposed to a temporary restraining order, which means that the Trump administration is now free to appeal this decision.

The Details:

The court memorandum issued by Talwani states that the Defendants “and anyone acting in concert or participation” with the Defendants [The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz] “are hereby enjoined from enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or otherwise applying the provisions” in the budget reconciliation act which disqualified the Plaintiffs (Planned Parenthood of Utah and “other Planned Parenthood Federation of America Members who will not provide abortion services as of October 1, 2025, or for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program… did not exceed $800,000”) from receiving federal Medicaid dollars for one year.

As noted by The Hill:

Talwani’s ruling still allows the administration to enforce the provision against other providers, and the legislation did not mention Planned Parenthood by name. But the organization says it comprises almost the entirety of the impacted entities.

Yet at least one other organization also said it would be impacted. Maine Family Planning, the state’s largest network of reproductive health clinics, filed a separate lawsuit last week seeking to restore Medicaid funding.

(Read more about Maine Family Planning’s lawsuit here.)

Talwani ordered the Trump administration to “take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other Planned Parenthood Federation of America Members who will not provide abortion services….”

National Review Online’s Dan McLaughlin wrote in response:

Talwani’s legal theory is that Planned Parenthood affiliates have a right of speech and association to continue receiving taxpayer money over the objections of Congress if the affiliates in states where abortion is banned do not perform abortions, and that Planned Parenthood performing abortions and engaging in politics with the financial benefits of taxpayer funding is an “expressive” right that Congress must fund.

The idea that money might be fungible in the real world is never even considered. The opinion is full of rhetoric and euphemisms that echo Planned Parenthood…

The administration had issued its own memorandum on July 14, arguing against the judge’s decision to put Planned Parenthood’s federal Medicaid defunding on hold with a temporary restraining order (TRO). Among the Trump administration’s main arguments was the idea that Planned Parenthood is attempting to force the legislative and executive branches to continue funding its operations, writing:

All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact [the budget reconciliation bill] consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent. But Plaintiffs… now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences… 

That request is legally groundless and must be firmly rejected.

The administration also hit back against Planned Parenthood’s claim that it is being singled out, and that its “First Amendment” activity — free speech in abortion advocacy — is being restricted. The administration noted:

Planned Parenthood and its members may continue to engage in First Amendment activity; they can only be disqualified from Medicaid if they continue to provide certain abortions on or after October 1, 2025…. There is no viable First Amendment challenge because providing abortions is conduct, not speech….

But in her July 21 order, Talwani claimed that “Defendants have not shown that a stay should issue. Above, the court has concluded that Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim based on their showing that Section 71113 draws a classification that burdens Plaintiffs’ and Planned Parenthood Members’ First Amendment rights.”

Talwani claimed the Trump administration has “not made a strong showing that they are likely to prevail on appeal,” adding that “The court has also concluded that enjoining enforcement of Section 71113 will risk at most minimal harm—financial or otherwise—to Defendants” and that “staying the preliminary injunction burdens Plaintiffs and Planned Parenthood Members with an immediate choice between exercising their associational rights and maintaining eligibility for Medicaid reimbursements. A stay should not issue where it would leave Plaintiffs unprotected from First Amendment injury.”

Now that Talwani has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration, HHS and CMS can appeal.

The Backstory:

On July 7, within mere hours of Planned Parenthood’s filing of a lawsuit against the Trump administration, Judge Talwani had issued a TRO against the defunding provisions in the budget reconciliation bill passed by both the House and Senate and then signed into law by President Trump on July 4.

Just over a week later on July 15, Talwani again refused a request to lift the TRO, amending it to read that she believed Planned Parenthood was likely to succeed in claiming that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

Talwani heard oral arguments on July 18 and issued a preliminary injunction on July 21.

The Bottom Line:

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that states are free to defund Planned Parenthood from their own Medicaid programs.

Tyler O’Neil, senior editor of The Daily Signal, stated on X on July 8th, “How is it anything less than an insurrection when Judge Indira Talwani rules that HHS cannot enforce the Big Beautiful Bill Congress just passed, less than a month after the Supreme Court ruled legislatures can defund Planned Parenthood?…”

Many seem to be asking the same question as they await the Trump administration’s response to Talwani’s preliminary injunction.

Follow Live Action News on Facebook and Instagram for more pro-life news.