Biden Judges Shock Left: Uphold Trump-Era Crackdown on Abortion Funds

Paul Riverbank, 12/13/2025Biden-appointed judges uphold Trump-era Medicaid abortion funding limits, spotlighting unexpected legal turns.

This legal story traces back to the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in the closing years of the Trump administration. The core of the law is simple in its text but loaded in meaning: non-profits that perform abortions and receive more than $800,000 annually from Medicaid are barred from accessing those funds. Its intent? Many believe it was aimed squarely at Planned Parenthood and a small handful of peer providers.

District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts had stepped in last summer, hitting pause on the law’s enforcement. Her opinion was straightforward: the legislation, she said, crossed a constitutional line into forbidden territory. She pegged it as a “bill of attainder,” a relic of legal history that punishes a particular group without trial—and is banned by the Constitution. Judge Talwani flagged other red lines too, from free speech to equal protection.

But on Friday, three appellate judges—all named by President Biden—saw the law in an entirely different light. Judge Gustavo Gelpi, writing for the panel, concluded that Congress wasn’t meting out punishment so much as wielding its authority over the federal purse. In his reading, lawmakers weren’t singling out Planned Parenthood for past behavior; rather, they were calling the shots on the terms attached to federal money.

It’s a stance rooted in how powers are parceled out in government. Congress, the panel wrote, isn’t obliged to fund everything or everyone. Difficult decisions—like whether to accept federal money and modify services, or forgo those funds to keep providing abortions—are tough, yes, but not necessarily unconstitutional. The opinion leaned on a line from earlier Supreme Court rulings: while Congress might make choices some find unwise, the courts generally let the democratic process run its course unless the Constitution is clearly crossed.

After the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision ended the national right to abortion, those backing this funding restriction saw their position strengthened. The government pressed the point in court: nothing illegal, they said, about withholding Medicaid dollars from organizations that perform abortions.

Planned Parenthood, not surprisingly, didn’t see it as a mere budgetary tweak. Alexis McGill Johnson, its national president, framed Friday’s decision as the continuation of a broader campaign to chip away at reproductive healthcare. She warned that, since the law took effect in September, at least twenty Planned Parenthood clinics have been forced to close.

And yet, the legal back-and-forth is hardly finished. In a separate case, Judge Talwani again stepped in to block enforcement—this time covering twenty-two states and the District of Columbia, mostly led by Democrats. That injunction remains in temporary limbo while appeals shuffle through the system.

For the moment, the outlook is clear: Congress has the authority to dictate the rules for federal dollars. Organizations that provide abortion among other health services will now need to navigate a far trickier path, weighing their priorities and resources more carefully than before. The courts, at least for now, appear content to let lawmakers set those boundaries.

But none of this resolves the deeper debates over abortion rights or who pays for what in the American healthcare system. If nothing else, Friday’s decision underscores the intricate dance between Congress and the courts, this time with a Biden-appointed bench upholding a law championed by Trump. Sometimes, in constitutional matters, the system produces outcomes that defy political assumptions—and remind us that checks and balances, while messy, are ever in motion.

A major court decision out of Boston could significantly alter the funding landscape for abortion providers, at least for the time being. Late last week, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s order, disrupting the flow of Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood and similar organizations that offer abortion-related services.This legal story traces back to the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in the closing years of the Trump administration. The core of the law is simple in its text but loaded in meaning: non-profits that perform abortions and receive more than $800,000 annually from Medicaid are barred from accessing those funds. Its intent? Many believe it was aimed squarely at Planned Parenthood and a small handful of peer providers.District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts had stepped in last summer, hitting pause on the law’s enforcement. Her opinion was straightforward: the legislation, she said, crossed a constitutional line into forbidden territory. She pegged it as a “bill of attainder,” a relic of legal history that punishes a particular group without trial—and is banned by the Constitution. Judge Talwani flagged other red lines too, from free speech to equal protection.But on Friday, three appellate judges—all named by President Biden—saw the law in an entirely different light. Judge Gustavo Gelpi, writing for the panel, concluded that Congress wasn’t meting out punishment so much as wielding its authority over the federal purse. In his reading, lawmakers weren’t singling out Planned Parenthood for past behavior; rather, they were calling the shots on the terms attached to federal money.It’s a stance rooted in how powers are parceled out in government. Congress, the panel wrote, isn’t obliged to fund everything or everyone. Difficult decisions—like whether to accept federal money and modify services, or forgo those funds to keep providing abortions—are tough, yes, but not necessarily unconstitutional. The opinion leaned on a line from earlier Supreme Court rulings: while Congress might make choices some find unwise, the courts generally let the democratic process run its course unless the Constitution is clearly crossed.After the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision ended the national right to abortion, those backing this funding restriction saw their position strengthened. The government pressed the point in court: nothing illegal, they said, about withholding Medicaid dollars from organizations that perform abortions.Planned Parenthood, not surprisingly, didn’t see it as a mere budgetary tweak. Alexis McGill Johnson, its national president, framed Friday’s decision as the continuation of a broader campaign to chip away at reproductive healthcare. She warned that, since the law took effect in September, at least twenty Planned Parenthood clinics have been forced to close.And yet, the legal back-and-forth is hardly finished. In a separate case, Judge Talwani again stepped in to block enforcement—this time covering twenty-two states and the District of Columbia, mostly led by Democrats. That injunction remains in temporary limbo while appeals shuffle through the system.For the moment, the outlook is clear: Congress has the authority to dictate the rules for federal dollars. Organizations that provide abortion among other health services will now need to navigate a far trickier path, weighing their priorities and resources more carefully than before. The courts, at least for now, appear content to let lawmakers set those boundaries.But none of this resolves the deeper debates over abortion rights or who pays for what in the American healthcare system. If nothing else, Friday’s decision underscores the intricate dance between Congress and the courts, this time with a Biden-appointed bench upholding a law championed by Trump. Sometimes, in constitutional matters, the system produces outcomes that defy political assumptions—and remind us that checks and balances, while messy, are ever in motion.