BREAKING: Federal judge in Boston blocks Big Beautiful Bill provision barring Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood

[In It to Win It]

Josh Gerstein
‪@joshgerstein.bsky.social‬

BREAKING: Federal judge in Boston blocks Big Beautiful Bill provision barring Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama) issues TRO, sets preliminary injunction hearing for July 21. Doc: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25992555-pptro070725/ Earlier: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/03/congress/planned-parenthood-trump-lawsuit-00439702

BREAKING: Federal judge in Boston blocks Big Beautiful Bill provision barring Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Judge Indira Talwani (Obama) issues TRO, sets preliminary injunction hearing for July 21. Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/25... Earlier: www.politico.com/live-updates...

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein.bsky.social) 2025-07-07T21:31:14.139Z

[UTUSN]

1. K&R

[Bluestocking]

2. I thought Congress could not be overruled

[Mad_Machine76]

4. Why did you think that?

If a law runs afoul of the Constitution and/or other statutory law, then, of course, it can be challenged (and potentially struck down).

[ProfessorGAC]

7. That's What The Judiciary Does

An entire hierarchy of the court system is dedicated to deciding if laws passed pass constitutional muster.

[Attilatheblond]

14. Doesn't seem to matter much of late

[ProfessorGAC]

18. That Wasn't The Question

Your reply is a nonsequitur.

[Attilatheblond]

22. I didn't reply to a question

[ProfessorGAC]

23. I Did

I answered a question from another poster.
Now, you have 2 nonsequitur responses.
Try to keep up.

[cstanleytech]

16. They can if what Congress does is potentially Unconstitutional.

[TomSlick]

19. Please see,

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[AllaN01Bear]

3. ""

[druidity33]

5. Is that the same as an injunction?

Didn't the SC just decide Judges couldn't do that?

[onenote]

9. It's not a nationwide injunction of the kind addressed by the Supreme Court.

Link to TRO:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.18.0.pdf

[FBaggins]

11. No and no

A TRO is just to hold the status quo in place while the opposing party has an opportunity to respond to the case (in this case just two weeks).

A preliminary injunction is a longer-term pause while the case is heard (often many months or even a few years) - and it requires the judge to find that the plaintiff is likely to win on the merits and would be irreparably harmed if they didn't receive it.

The recent SCOTUS ruling was essentially that a single district judge could not see a case with one plaintif and issue a nationwide injunction blocking executive action. But in this case, the single plaintiff is already a national organization. So blocking executive action against that one plaintiff is close to a nationwide decision already

[MichMan]

6. Planned Parenthood is guaranteed federal funding and no one can take it away, not even Congress.

[onenote]

8. That isn't true.

And it certainly isn't what Planned Parenthood argued.

Rather they argued that the provision was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a violation of the fifth amendment's equal protection clause, and a first amendment violation.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.5.0_2.pdf

[MichMan]

12. Regardless, that is the practical effect of the ruling

Here is part of the link in the OP.

The bill, which passed in the House on Thursday and now awaits President Donald Trump’s signature, includes a provision that would prohibit providers that offer abortions from accepting Medicaid funding for any other reproductive health care services.

The court ruled that funding to PP can't be taken away by congress

[In It to Win It]

15. It's just preserving the status quo. It's only a 2 week order.

[TomSlick]

21. Did you use the wrong emoji?

Your post make sense if you intended .

[mountain grammy]

10. And 6 Supreme Court justices

Are drooling to get this case and further restrict women’s rights.

Laws??? What laws? John Roberts and co are the law

[lostincalifornia]

17. Exactly. No one can be that naive?

[Gimpyknee]

20. Really? I see naive comments here every day.