A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction starting next week on a federal rule targeting Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health providers for some states. The Trump administration is expected to appeal. (Photo by Sarah Ladd/Kentucky Lantern)
A federal judge has again blocked a controversial rule that bans federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other nonprofit reproductive health providers. But this time she decides in a different case with different arguments.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Tuesday, December 2, issue an interim injunction starting next week for 22 states that, along with the District of Columbia, sued the federal government in July.
State attorneys general argue that the federal government violated the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution by failing to provide clear guidelines and time to comply with conditions set forth in the budget reconciliation package passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump this summer.
The Medicaid provision primarily affects Planned Parenthood clinics as well as some other reproductive health care providers that also offer legal abortion services.
Lawyers for the Trump administration argue that other states did not find the provision unclear.
This week, Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, ordered that as the case unfolds in the states, federal Medicaid funds should continue to flow, including to Planned Parenthood clinics in the states involved in the lawsuit.
The federal government “will take all necessary steps to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the usual manner and time frame” to the states that filed the lawsuit, “without regard to whether the claims were submitted by facilities that may be ‘prohibited facilities,'” she wrote.
The court imposed a seven-day administrative stay to prevent the injunction from taking effect immediately, and the ruling is likely to be appealed.
“Enacting the defund provision would mean our population becomes sicker and loses access to vital health services they need,” co-plaintiff Attorney General Rob Bonta of California said in a statement opinionpraised the judge’s decision. “We should be clear about what the defund provision represents: an offensive by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress against Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide essential reproductive care to the poorest among us.”
As States Newsroom reported The Unraveling Safety Net seriesthe consequences of this Medicaid provision in the A huge, handsome Bill Act was essential to reproductive health clinics and their patients across the country. While some have committed to continuing to treat Medicaid patients, many others have had to redirect patients, often to regions with restricted care options. According to Planned Parenthood at least 20 Many of its clinics have closed since the Medicaid ban took effect, in addition to dozens of clinics that closed earlier this year due to other federal funding cuts.
Lawyers for the federal government have argued that states have no authority in this case because they cannot argue on behalf of health organizations and citizens. However, the judge wrote that the plaintiffs argued that they would incur increased costs directly as a result of complying with the provision – and as a result of these clinic closures.
Talwani ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to sue and had demonstrated “a substantial likelihood of success.”
She also ordered that defendants provide a copy of this decision to all HHS employees and state agencies involved in the disbursement of Medicaid funds. And it granted a nominal bail waiver of $100, to be posted within seven days, but not the full amount sought by the plaintiffs: $600,000 per month while the injunction is in effect.
“The district court has once again recognized the defund law for what it is: unconstitutional and dangerous,” a Planned Parenthood spokesperson said in a written statement. “Planned Parenthood will not stop fighting until everyone has the freedom to get the care they need, when and where they need it.”
Planned Parenthood and Maine Family Planning also challenged the provision in separate lawsuits. In The fall of Planned ParenthoodTalwani ordered the provision blocked, but the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled in September allowed the Medicaid provision to take effect as the litigation continues.
The arguments in the States case differ significantly from the arguments in Planned Parenthood lawsuitThe issue is whether the federal government unlawfully targeted clinics and violated their freedom of association.
Mary Ziegler, an abortion rights expert, said the states’ arguments are stronger.
“The court, I think, rightly said that Congress can change the Medicaid program, but to do that it must clearly communicate to the states what it is doing so that they can make their own decisions about whether they want to continue to participate in Medicaid on the same terms,” Ziegler said, referring to Talwani’s ruling on Tuesday.
She noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the terms under the Spending Clause must be clear and states must be notified in advance if they change.
“Clarity arguments are sort of in the eye of the beholder,” she added. “You know, the Supreme Court might say, Is it the clearest thing in the world? No, but it’s clear enough for us. But I think it’s definitely not as far-fetched as the basis for Judge Talwani’s decision earlier this year.”
Over the past year, Planned Parenthood has been embroiled in litigation over public funding in several federal and state cases, and in June it lost a major court battle involving an executive order in South Carolina, when the The US Supreme Court ruled that the state could remove the organization from its list of Medicaid providers. Also on Tuesday: Planned Parenthood a lawsuit dropped It calls into question the state’s ability to delist its clinics.
Anti-abortion organizations that have long fought to keep Planned Parenthood from receiving funding celebrated the provision in the federal budget that expires in July 2026. They frame it as an abortion issue, even though federal funding for abortion care is already prohibited except in certain circumstances. And as The States newsroom reportedAbortion opponents and advocates are looking for novel ways to permanently prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding.
“Democrats and their radical activist judges are desperately trying to thwart the will of the people and save the big abortion industry,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement opinion. “This fight is not over. The pro-life movement will work tirelessly to ensure that Democrats do not win and taxpayers are never forced to pay a dime to support large abortion companies.”
The federal Medicaid provision in these cases could expire before the litigation is resolved unless Congress extends it or makes it lasting. Ziegler said the policy is likely to be a major campaign issue for Democrats in the coming elections.
“The more decisions like this and the more time Planned Parenthood partners are given to not go out of business, I think this issue will become more difficult for Republicans,” Ziegler said. “Even though the abortion issue didn’t get Kamala Harris across the finish line in 2024, I still don’t think there are polls that really support the idea that abortion is a good issue for Republicans.”
This story was originally produced by News from the Stateswhich is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network that includes West Virginia Watch, and is a 501c(3) public charity supported by grants and a coalition of donors.
