Oh, buckle up for this one — because if you thought judicial overreach had limits, Judge Indira Talwani just sent you a strongly worded “think again.”
The Boston-based U.S. District Judge has now taken her crusade against Congress’ defunding of Planned Parenthood from a temporary restraining order to a full-on preliminary injunction — and the reasoning? Let’s just say it’s more Planned Parenthood press release than constitutional analysis.
5/ SO the ONLY claim the judge said Plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on was the First Amendment association one and only SOME entities have standing to make that challenge, yet Judge re-upped TRO for all Planned Parenthoods. pic.twitter.com/fmqeHzpNOM
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 12, 2025
Here’s the rundown: Congress passed Section 71113 as part of its recent reconciliation package, which effectively cut off Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood’s network. Pretty straightforward — Congress controls the purse. But Talwani swooped in and said, “Not so fast,” first issuing a TRO with zero justification (which in itself is a legal no-no), then amending it a week later to claim that defunding Planned Parenthood violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Yes, really.
Now, in her latest ruling, Talwani doubles down. She claims that the defunding amounts to unconstitutional “retaliation” against Planned Parenthood — viewpoint discrimination, she calls it — and denies them “equal protection.” And because no Planned Parenthood defense is complete without a bit of melodrama, she also threw in this gem:
“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable… restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications… and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”
Ah yes, the apocalypse will follow if Planned Parenthood loses a few hundred million in federal subsidies. Conveniently ignored? That Planned Parenthood is a private entity that could easily raise funds from its army of wealthy donors, or that countless other providers exist for contraceptive and STI services. But hey, that doesn’t play into the narrative.
⚖️ In Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Kennedy (defunding Planned Parenthood), Judge Indira Talwani GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.https://t.co/EStkBId16z
— Susie Moore ⚾️ (@SmoosieQ) July 28, 2025
And let’s pause on the legal gymnastics here. Talwani is essentially saying that Congress — the very body constitutionally empowered to appropriate (and cut off) funding — can’t defund an organization if doing so could be construed as politically motivated. Seriously? That would mean Congress couldn’t pull funding from any entity opposed by a ruling party. Want to defund NPR? Nope, viewpoint discrimination. Planned Parenthood? Off-limits. In fact, by this standard, Congress could barely exercise its power of the purse at all without ending up in court.
