Judge temporarily blocks Planned Parenthood ‘defunding' in Trump megabill
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's ruling marks the first known instance of a federal judge limiting enforcement of any part of the 'big, beautiful' bill, which President Trump signed into law on Friday.
It came just hours after Planned Parenthood sued over a provision that imposes a one-year ban on state Medicaid payments to health care nonprofits that also offer abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023.
Talwani's ruling still allows the administration to enforce the provision against other providers, but Planned Parenthood says it comprises almost the entirety of the impacted entities.
The judge issued the decision before the government responded, providing no explanation beyond a brief note that Planned Parenthood had shown 'good cause' for her to immediately intervene.
The ruling lasts two weeks, and the judge will rule on whether to grant a longer injunction following a July 21 hearing. Talwani is an appointee of former President Obama.
Stressing that federal law already bans federal funding for abortion, Planned Parenthood argues that the provision unconstitutionally singles out the organization, violates its equal protection rights and amounts to retaliation for Planned Parenthood's protected speech.
The group warned that it would have to make cuts if the judge did not immediately get involved.
'We're grateful that the court acted swiftly to block this unconstitutional law attacking Planned Parenthood providers and patients,' the group said in a statement following her ruling.
'Already, in states across the country, providers and health center staff have been forced to turn away patients who use Medicaid to get basic sexual and reproductive health care because President Trump and his backers in Congress passed a law to block them from going to Planned Parenthood. There are no other providers who can fill the gap if the 'defunding' of Planned Parenthood is allowed to stand,' the statement continued.
The Hill has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment. It is due to respond to Planned Parenthood's arguments in court filings by next Monday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
20 minutes ago
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to stop DOJ grant cancellations
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday denied a preliminary injunction sought by five organizations on behalf of all recipients of the more than 360 grant awards, and granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. Mehta called the Department of Justice's actions 'shameful,' but said the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection. 'Defendants' rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,' Mehta wrote in his ruling. 'But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.' The Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs cancelled the grants worth more than $800 million in April, saying it had changed its priorities to, among other things, more directly support certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault. A message left seeking comment from Democracy Forward officials was not immediately returned. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling. The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm argued that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organizations and lacked sufficient clarity. The lawyers also said the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers. Many of the organizations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-stream had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships. The five organizations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others. The Justice Department asked Mehta to dismiss the suit, arguing in a court filing that there was 'no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.' Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a 'run-of-the mill contract dispute' and said it belonged in a different court.
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Big Bill Is Now Law. What Was Learned?
To the Editor: Re 'Three Lessons From the Big, Awful Bill,' by Jason Furman (Opinion guest essay, July 7): I'm afraid that Professor Furman drew the wrong lessons from this bill. Its passage had nothing to do with the quality of ideas, experts or even economics. It was all about greed (for power and money) and fear (of President Trump). The legislators' constituents or the fate of the country meant nothing in the face of the Big, Awful Tyrant in the White House. Susan BodikerWashington To the Editor: Jason Furman is wrong to think that the way the Republicans brought us the worst piece of legislation in modern times holds a lesson for Democrats. It's easy to put together legislation that enriches the rich, brings cruelty to the vulnerable and is fiscally irresponsible. It's what Trump supporters do. It's much harder to craft legislation that helps bring about economic growth that can be widely shared among all Americans and do good for the world. The lesson here is more simple: Whatever debates Democrats are having between more centrist and progressive elements pales in comparison to the damage we do when we don't get out the vote to prevent Republicans from taking power. Richard DineSilver Spring, Md. To the Editor: Maybe there's only one lesson from President Trump's hugely horrific bill: Legislating works very differently when there is a large dose of authoritarianism in the body politic. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Axios
22 minutes ago
- Axios
The paradox of Trump's tariff policy
U.S. trade policy has entered the great in-between, a liminal state in which high tariffs on major trading partners are ostensibly imminent, yet also forever just over the next horizon. Why it matters: The good news for American consumers and businesses is that potential price shocks and other disruptions from an all-out global trade war remain at bay — and Wall Street is taking this confusing landscape in stride. The bad news is it's hardly the kind of policy landscape conducive to companies making long-term investments. State of play: With a much-balleyhooed 90-day negotiation period set to expire Wednesday, President Trump issued a slew of letters announcing new tariffs on major trading partners that are close to those originally announced on the April 2 "Liberation Day." The most economically consequential are 25% tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea, major trading partners and traditional geopolitical allies. But they are not set to go into effect until Aug. 1, three weeks away. Driving the news: On Tuesday morning, Trump insisted that the onset of higher tariffs is real this time, suggesting it's not just a negotiating feint. "TARIFFS WILL START BEING PAID ON AUGUST 1, 2025. There has been no change to this date, and there will be no change," he wrote on Truth Social. "No extensions will be granted," he added. Zoom in: Markets have largely shrugged off those threats, betting that Trump envisions further deal-making — and, implicitly, further punting of tariffs — ahead. Stock, bond, and currency markets have seen only modest moves on the news, in contrast to their early April sell-off. Meanwhile, inflation data came in soft for April and May, contrary to warnings from business leaders and economists that tariff-fueled price spikes and shortages could loom. Between the lines: The combination of a booming stock market and lack of evident economic damage from the earlier rollout of tariffs seems to have empowered Trump to keep pushing tariff talk, rather than strike quick deals and move on. What they're saying: These are, as Bob Elliott of Unlimited Funds wrote, "Schrodinger's Tariffs," simultaneously alive and dead. The administration "has had room to swing back to a more aggressive policy stance on the trade war because so far the effects are not being felt significantly across the economy," he wrote in his newsletter, Nonconsensus. "But a big reason why there has been no impact here is simply because it's taking time to ramp up the prospective tariff collection, and that then is taking time to flow into the real economy given normal lags," Elliott argued. The fact that negotiations with countries like Japan and South Korea were at such a stalemate that Trump has reignited the trade war is a sign of a new normal. "At a very basic level, nothing actually happened based on Trump sending these letters, so there's no reason to panic over headlines," wrote Tobin Marcus at Wolfe Research in a note. "But we think these moves do contain some signal about where the trade war is heading, and that signal is mostly hawkish," he added. By the numbers: If the tariffs announced Monday go into effect and remain in place, it would translate to a 17.6% average effective tariff rate on U.S. imports, the Yale Budget Lab estimates, the highest since 1934. That's up from 15.8% previously and up from 2.4% as of January. If sustained, the currently announced tariff regime would translate to a 1.7% rise in consumer prices, costing the average household $2,300 per year, per the Yale Budget Lab. The bottom line: There is good reason to believe Trump's latest letters to trading partners are a negotiating strategy, but the fact that they exist is a warning sign about the new global trade landscape.
