Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy

Section 7113 of the Republicans’ signature policy bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBA”), strips organizations that provide abortions of eligibility to participate in the federal Medicaid program if they meet the following conditions:

• the organization is tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code;
• the organization is an essential community provider under 45 CFR 156.235 that is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care; and
• the organization and its affiliates (if any) collectively received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in fiscal year 2023.

The provision is designed to target Planned Parenthood, though a handful of independent abortion providers are collateral damage.  The impact of this law will be devastating, denying over a million Medicaid patients across the country access to their healthcare provider of choice and forcing some health centers to close their doors altogether.  Low-income patients in medically underserved areas will be left with few, if any, alternatives for obtaining basic sexual and reproductive healthcare, including cancer screenings, birth control services, and STI testing and treatment.

Shortly after OBBA was enacted, a federal district court preliminarily enjoined Section 7113, commonly known as the Defund Provision, but the First Circuit subsequently stayed the injunction, allowing the Defund Provision to take effect while it considers the Government’s appeal.  On October 16, 2025, the Lawyering Project filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit, urging the Court to reinstate the injunction.

The Lawyering Project’s brief argues that, in the current political climate where President Trump and his allies in Congress are shattering democratic norms and regularly using the levers of government to retaliate against their perceived political enemies, the First Circuit should take seriously Planned Parenthood’s claim that the Defund Provision is unconstitutional retaliation for its exercise of First Amendment rights—in particular, its unapologetic advocacy for abortion and its association with Section 501(c)(4) organizations that support candidates for office who are committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights, the vast majority of whom are Democrats.  The rights protected by the First Amendment are an essential element of free society; democracy could not function—much less flourish—without them.  Now more than ever, governmental efforts to stifle disfavored speakers and viewpoints must be carefully scrutinized and promptly remedied.

The First Circuit will hear oral argument on November 12, 2025.