A federal judge on Monday issued a partial injunction blocking the Trump administration from cutting Medicaid funding to some Planned Parenthood affiliates, halting a key provision of the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The budget law, signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, included language to strip federal Medicaid reimbursements from the nation’s largest abortion provider.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee serving in Massachusetts, ruled that the law could unconstitutionally penalize certain Planned Parenthood member organizations—specifically those that do not provide abortion services—by cutting off federal support.
Talwani’s order partially grants Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction while the case moves forward, stating that the financial impact on the Trump administration would be “minimal,” compared to the potential harm to the plaintiffs and their patients.
The ruling affects a subset of Planned Parenthood’s roughly 600 facilities: those receiving less than $800,000 in annual Medicaid reimbursements and not directly offering abortion services. The judge declined to extend protection to the entire organization, prompting a mixed response from Planned Parenthood leadership.
“This isn’t over,” the nonprofit said in a statement. “While we’re grateful that the court recognized the harm caused by this law, we’re disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today.”
The lawsuit centers around a controversial provision in the sweeping Republican-led budget bill that passed without Democratic support. The measure aimed to eliminate federal subsidies for entities affiliated with abortion providers by targeting Medicaid funds—a move championed by pro-life groups following the Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Planned Parenthood lawyers argued in filings that the law jeopardizes access to cancer screenings, STI testing, and contraception, particularly for low-income patients. They noted that Medicaid rarely covers abortion procedures and that over a million patients—half of the group’s client base—could lose access to essential services.
The Department of Justice countered, stating that the bill merely sought to end federal funding for “Big Abortion” and did not impose unconstitutional burdens. DOJ attorneys argued that economic loss does not justify judicial intervention and that the potential harm to third-party patients was speculative and legally irrelevant.
Two weeks ago, Talwani granted a temporary restraining order halting enforcement of the defunding provision, but offered no rationale at the time—drawing sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers, who accused the court of overstepping its authority. In her follow-up order Monday, Talwani defended her position, citing constitutional concerns.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
