Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy
1:25-cv-11913
D. Mass.Jul 11, 2025Background
- On July 4, 2025, a new federal law (Section 71113 of "the Reconciliation Act") took effect, prohibiting Medicaid reimbursements to certain healthcare providers, specifically targeting Planned Parenthood affiliates involved in abortion services.
- Plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America, its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates—alleged the law would cause widespread disruption to patient care for low-income individuals relying on Medicaid.
- Plaintiffs sought and initially obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt enforcement of Section 71113, claiming irreparable harm.
- Defendants (HHS and CMS officials) moved to dissolve the TRO, mainly on procedural grounds, arguing lack of notice and opportunity to respond before the TRO was issued.
- The court considered and then denied the motion, amending the TRO to clarify reasons, require a nominal $100 bond, and continue protection for Planned Parenthood member clinics pending a preliminary injunction hearing.
- Key disputed language concerned the law’s application to "affiliates," which plaintiffs said created confusion, risk, and expanded harm even to clinics not performing abortions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice & Opportunity Before TRO | Defendants had notice and chance to respond | No notice or chance to be heard before TRO | Court found proper notice was provided; procedural objection denied. |
| Irreparable Harm & Status Quo | Disruption/delay in care for Medicaid patients is irreparable | No emergency justifying immediate relief | Court found likely irreparable harm necessitating TRO. |
| Constitutional Challenge—Due Process/Vagueness | Law unconstitutionally vague, especially for "affiliates" | Procedural focus; substantive challenge reserved | Court found likely success for plaintiffs on due process/vagueness claim. |
| Constitutional Challenge—First Amendment | Law infringes associational/expressive rights by targeting Planned Parenthood, incl. affiliates | Did not address merits at this stage | Court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on First Amendment associational claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (serves as precedent for limiting TROs to preserve status quo pending hearing)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (First Amendment right of association supports organizational plaintiff's argument)
- Harris v. Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County, 366 F.3d 754 (delayed healthcare access is recognized as irreparable harm)