A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled against the Trump Administration’s request to stay an order temporarily halting implementation of a new policy preventing affiliates of Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding.
Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani rejected the government’s argument that they would suffer “irreparable injury” if they are forced to allow Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide to continue billing Medicaid as this case plays out in court.
According to Judge Talwani, the clinics would be more likely to suffer harm if they are blocked from receiving payments while the case is pending, as they have indicated they may be required to reduce services or close clinics due to a lack of funding.
This ruling comes about a month after Talwani first issued the injunction preventing the federal government from denying Medicaid funding while Planned Parenthood’s challenge winds its way through the courts.
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey is among the coalition of twenty-one Democrat attorneys general suing the Trump Administration over this clause, found in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that defunds Maine’s branch of Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations.
The provision in question blocks Medicaid reimbursements for services performed at facilities deemed ineligible due to their association with Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s most prominent abortion providers.
In the initial 58-page opinion issued by Talwani — an appointee of former President Barack Obama (D) — it was argued that this effort to defund Planned Parenthood amounts to a violation of the Constitution.
According to the judge’s interpretation, preventing clinics associated with Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding represents a violation of their First Amendment rights and denies them equal protection under the law.
These arguments carried over into her ruling on the federal government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal.
Although the Trump Administration argued in their request that they expect to succeed on appeal because the policy does not a “Bill of Attainder” — or a law punishing a specific group without a trial — as has been suggested by the plaintiffs.
Talwani asserted Friday that the federal government has not “not ‘made a strong showing'” that they are likely to prevail “on appeal as to any of the grounds on which Plaintiffs have thus far shown a likelihood of success, let alone all three.”
“Defendants ultimately contend that because Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional, they “‘should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits’ by the Supreme Court,” Talwani wrote. “But here, the court has determined that Plaintiffs have rebutted the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to Acts of Congress for the purpose of seeking preliminary relief.”
As a result of this ruling, the federal government will continue to be blocked from preventing Planned Parenthood affiliates from receiving Medicaid funding as this case plays out in court.
Click Here to Read the Full Ruling
This, however, is not the only challenge that has been filed over the new federal policy recently.
Maine Family Planning has brought a separate lawsuit regarding the provision, arguing that the Big Beautiful Bill “deprives [them] of equal protection of the laws in connection with its participation as a provider in the State of Maine’s Medicaid program.”
Despite the apparent similarities between the two cases, Maine Family Planning’s lawsuit is currently on a very different track.
U.S. District Judge Lance Walker ruled last week against the clinic’s request for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case failed to convincingly argue that their constitutional rights had been violated “due to several severe jurisprudential headwinds that [he is] bound to observe.”
Judge Walker went on to suggest that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health eliminated “the thermal lift that used to be available to Plaintiff and other abortion providers when abortion was considered a constitutional right.”
According to court filings, about half of the patients served by Maine Family Planning are Medicaid recipients.
Figures provided to the court by the plaintiff suggest that in 2024, 7.38 percent of patients serviced at Maine Family Planning clinics received abortions. Procedural abortions are made available at one clinic, while medication abortions are offered at all 18 locations.
Other services provided by Maine Family Planning include testing for sexually transmitted infections, cervical cancer screenings, gynecological exams, and access to contraception. Three clinics also provide patients with primary care services.
Just less than a quarter of Maine Family Planning’s annual revenue comes from Medicaid and about 62 percent of that funding comes from the federal government.
“For present purposes, the question is whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment overrides the congressional will concerning the defunding of certain abortion providers,” Walker explained.
Walker went on to argue that the courts do not serve as an “omnibus super-legislature” with the power to determine what is and is not good public policy.
