Federal Appeals Court Upholds Funding Restrictions on Planned Parenthood

On December 12, 2025, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Trump administration's decision to withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, as mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025. This legislation specifically targets abortion providers, requiring that organizations receiving Medicaid reimbursements cease providing abortion services to qualify for federal funding. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously overturned a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who had blocked the funding restrictions, arguing that they likely violated constitutional protections.

Appeals Court Rejects Judge's Attempt to Block Planned Parenthood Defunding

The appeals court, led by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí, stated that Congress has broad discretion in determining the conditions under which federal funds are allocated. Gelpí emphasized that the law does not constitute a punishment but rather establishes new conditions for funding that organizations can meet by halting abortion services. The court acknowledged the adverse effects on Planned Parenthood but maintained that the law's intent aligns with Congress's interest in reducing abortions.

Appeals Court Rejects Judge's Attempt to Block Planned Parenthood Defunding

Judge Talwani had previously argued that the legislation functioned as a "bill of attainder," which is prohibited under the Constitution, as it appeared to specifically target Planned Parenthood. She contended that the law forced the organization and its affiliates to choose between providing abortions and receiving federal funds, thereby infringing on their rights to equal protection and association. However, the appeals court countered that the law's provisions did not impose penalties for past actions but rather set conditions for future funding.

Appeals Court Rejects Judge's Attempt to Block Planned Parenthood DefundingNew York Times

The ruling has significant implications for Planned Parenthood, which claims that the funding cuts could jeopardize the operation of its health clinics and affect over 1.1 million patients who rely on Medicaid for services. The organization argues that the legislation was crafted to specifically undermine its ability to provide comprehensive health care, including reproductive services.

New York Times

Critics of the ruling, including Planned Parenthood, argue that the decision reflects a targeted attack on reproductive health services and undermines the rights of women to access safe and legal abortions. They contend that the law's language and intent clearly single out Planned Parenthood, which could lead to broader implications for healthcare access across the country.

Appeals Court Rejects Judge's Attempt to Block Planned Parenthood Defunding

• “Instead, it establishes new conditions on the receipt of appropriated funds in service of a new policy goal favored by Congress.” — Judge Gustavo A. Gelpí

Appeals Court Rejects Judge's Attempt to Block Planned Parenthood Defunding

• “We are having trouble retrieving the article content.” — Planned Parenthood spokesperson

New York Times

The case will return to a lower court for further proceedings, where Planned Parenthood will continue to challenge the funding restrictions. The outcome may set a precedent for how federal funding is allocated to organizations providing abortion services in the future.

New York Times