Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—1st Cir.: First Circuit reverses preliminary injunctions in Planned Parenthood’s defunding challenge, (Dec 17, 2025)

By Sheila Lynch-Afryl, J.D., M.A.

Two other cases challenging the OBBBA’s defunding provision remain pending.

The federal government is allowed to enforce the provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Pub. L. No. 119-21 (2025), that blocks Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood facilities, the First Circuit found. Reversing the lower court’s July 21 and 28 preliminary injunctions, the court found that the facilities failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that OBBBA section 71113 violates the Bill of Attainder Clause, the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause. Planned Parenthood responded that the ruling “jeopardizes care for 1.1 million Planned Parenthood patients.” The next stop for this case is almost certainly the U.S. Supreme Court (Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, Nos. 25-1698 and 25-1755 (1st Cir. Dec. 12, 2025)).

OBBBA. Section 71113 of the OBBBA prohibits federal Medicaid funding from July 4, 2025 through July 4, 2026 for entities, including their affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics, that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements during fiscal year 2023 and, as of October 1, 2025: (1) are nonprofit; (2) are essential community providers “primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care”; and (3) provide abortions, with exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the life of the woman or result from rape or incest.

Preliminary injunctions. The District of Massachusetts issued preliminary injunctions on July 21 and July 28 prohibiting enforcement of section 71113 against most Planned Parenthood facilities. The court found that the provision violates Planned Parenthood’s First Amendment rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Bill of Attainder Clause. On September 11, the First Circuit stayed the district court’s orders pending appeal.

Bill of attainder. In its December 12 opinion, the First Circuit first found that section 71113 does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause because it does not inflict punishment. Supreme Court cases finding that legislation imposed punishment involved statutes imposing on individuals “severe, non-contingent disabilities from and restraints on participating in certain employments or professions because of past associations or conduct.” Section 71113, in contrast, “establishes new conditions on the receipt of appropriated funds in service of a new policy goal favored by Congress.” The court concluded that the OBBBA “uses Congress’s taxing and spending power to put Appellees to a difficult choice: give up federal Medicaid funds and continue to provide abortion services or continue receiving such funds by abandoning the provision of abortion services.”

First Amendment. The district court found that section 71113 unconstitutionally conditions federal funds for Planned Parenthood members that don’t provide abortions on the relinquishment of their First Amendment right to associate with members that do provide abortions. However, the First Circuit read “affiliates”—which the statute does not define—more narrowly, based on corporate control. It noted that under the Black’s Law Dictionary definitions, “affiliation depends on concrete organizational power, not merely shared values, professional standards, or membership in the same umbrella organization.” On remand, the district court can do further fact finding to determine whether the members satisfy this “control-based” definition of “affiliates.”

Equal protection. Finally, the First Circuit rejected the lower court’s conclusion that section 71113 violates equal protection because it infringes their fundamental First Amendment right of association. The court found that rational basis, rather than strict scrutiny, was the proper standard of review because a fundamental right is not implicated. Further, there are plausible reasons for treating “prohibited entities” different from other abortion providers, and “preventing these entities from receiving funds if they continue providing abortion services furthers Congress's interest in reducing abortions.”

Other pending cases. Two other cases challenging section 71113 remain pending.

On December 2 the District of Massachusetts—the same judge as in the Planned Parenthood case—preliminarily enjoined enforcement of section 71113 against 23 states. However, the First Circuit issued an administrative stay of the order on December 8 and later ordered additional briefing on the effect its Planned Parenthood opinion has on the federal government’s motion for stay pending appeal.

In addition, in August the District of Maine declined to block enforcement of section 71113 against a Maine family planning provider that alleged it was “collateral damage” to the provision’s attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. The order is on appeal to the First Circuit (No. 25-1829).

The case is Nos. 25-1698 and 25-1755.

Attorneys: Sharon Hogue (WilmerHale) for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Abraham R. George, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Robert F. Kennedy.

Companies: Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Cases: IndividualRights RemediesDamages FederalLegislation Procedure MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews