Filed Date: July 7, 2025
Closed Date: Jan. 30, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Except under narrow circumstances, federal funds (such as Medicaid reimbursements) may not be used to provide abortions. The "Defund Provision" (Section 71113 of the Trump administration's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act") denies Medicaid funds to certain prohibited entities entirely, including organizations that provide abortions and entities receiving more than $800,000 in Medicaid funds in the 2023 fiscal year. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) claims the law was drafted to target member organizations, including those that do not provide abortions.
On July 7, 2025, PPFA, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Secretary, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and its Administrators. The plaintiff's counsel is comprised of a group of attorneys from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. Judge Indira Talwani was assigned to the case.
The complaint made the following claims:
Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the Defund Provision was unconstitutional, as well as injunctive relief barring Defendants from enforcing the provisions of the Defund Provision against any Planned Parenthood Member.
The plaintiffs moved for emergency relief, requesting that the defendants be enjoined from enforcing or applying the Defund Provision. Judge Talwani granted this motion later that day without giving the government an opportunity to respond and ordered an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to be in effect for fourteen days.
On July 11, the government moved to vacate the TRO, claiming that the plaintiffs failed to show that they would suffer an immediate and irreparable injury without the TRO. In response, Judge Talwani amended the order for the TRO to explain the court's belief that irreparable harm had been caused by the Defund Provision. Judge Talwani also ordered a nominal bond.
On July 21 and July 28, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Talwani ultimately enjoined the government from enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or in any way applying the Defund Provision against members of the PPFA. The court also ordered the government to take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed.
The first order was limited to members who do not provide abortions and did not receive more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements for the 2023 fiscal year. In the July 21 opinion, the court found that the Defund Provision does impinge on a fundamental right (speech and association) and is therefore, subject to strict scrutiny review. Judge Talwani held that the Defund Provision would likely fail a strict scrutiny review. This is because the provision treats PPFA members differently than other-similarly situated entities and the criteria the provision applies are unrelated to the goal of reducing abortions. The government immediately appealed the order.
In the July 28 decision, the court extended the preliminary injunction to all PPFA members. Judge Talwani explained that "Section 71113 conditions a specified group’s continued participation in Medicaid on Planned Parenthood Members surrendering certain activities, it fits within a historical category of bills of attainder." The court declined the defendants motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending their appeal.
Defendants appealed the July 28, 2025 order on August 5, 2025 to the United States Court of Appeals for the First District. On August 7, 2025, defendants filed a motion to stay the TRO and the preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals denied both of the defendant's motions to stay the injunctions without prejudice, deeming them premature as a motion for similar relief was pending in the district court.
The parties jointly filed a motion to stay further district court proceedings pending resolution of the Defendant's Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunctions Pending Appeal on August 11, 2025. The court granted this joint motion on August 13, 2025. The following day, the Court of Appeals issued an order consolidating both of the defendant’s appeals for the purpose of briefing and oral argument.
After concluding the defendants met their burden demonstrating their entitlement to a stay of the preliminary injunctions pending the disposition of their appeals, Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí from the Court of Appeals for the First District granted the defendant’s motions, staying the July 21, 2025 preliminary injunction and the July 28, 2025 preliminary injunction. Judge Gelpí additionally granted the State of Louisiana and the American Center of Law & Justice leave to file an amicus brief. After the First Circuit made their ruling on defendants' motion to stay the preliminary injunctions, the Massachusetts District Court lifted the stay on their court from August. Soon after, the parties jointly filed a motion seeking again to stay District Court proceedings, this time pending resolution of defendant's full appeals of the preliminary injunctions. The District Court granted this motion, staying their proceedings again.
On September 16, 2025, in the First Circuit, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion asking the court reconsider their ruling staying the preliminary injunctions previously granted by the District Court. The court promptly denied plaintiffs' motion and ordered a new briefing schedule, with oral arguments scheduled for November 12, 2025. The court also ordered the parties to file a joint status report by October 3 to update the court on statutory implementation and any specific designations or identifications made under Section 71113.
Defendants sought a stay of the status report deadline due to the government shutdown. The court denied this stay, upholding the deadline. In the report, defendants reported that HHS was in the process of formulating implementation guidance and had not made any specific designations to date. Plaintiffs reported they had not received any guidance from defendant and that the plaintiffs and Planned Parenthood Member patients were continuing to incur irreparable harm every day because the provision is currently enforceable.
After the court granted defendant an extension, briefing by the parties and several amici was completed ahead of the oral argument scheduled for November 12, 2025. The appellate court issued its decision on December 12, 2025, vacating the district court's July 21 and July 28, 2025, orders granting the preliminary injunctions. The appellate court reasoned that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims for a number of reasons, including that the loss of funding did not likely constitute "punishment" under the law, which several of plaintiffs' claims relied upon, and that the plaintiffs' Equal Protection claim would likely be subjected to, and survive, rational basis review. The court remanded the matter back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. 2025 WL 3563200.
The parties were set to submit a proposed case schedule to the district court by January 20, 2026. Five days before this deadline, on January 15, 2026, the parties jointly move the Court to extend their deadline to file a proposed case schedule to February 3, 2026.
On January 30, 2026, plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice all their claims against defendants.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (7/8/2025)
Maddy Ligon (1/5/2026)
Claire Pollard (2/1/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70721678/parties/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-inc-v-kennedy/
Aguinaga, Benjamin J.
Anderson, Kristyn
Bonta, Robert
Boyer, Rick
Brewer, J. Mark
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70721678/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-inc-v-kennedy/
Last updated July 5, 2026, 4:45 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 7, 2025
Closing Date: Jan. 30, 2026
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs in this case are the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (on behalf of all its members), Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, and the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Massachusetts 1:25-cv-11913
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 25-01698
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 25-01755
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Benefits (Source):
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights:
Case Summary of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46766/ (last updated 2/1/2026).