The judicial system poses significant challenges to President Donald Trump’s agenda. This week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani from Massachusetts issued an injunction, temporarily restricting the Trump administration’s power to deny Medicaid funds to certain organizations related to family planning. Instead, she directed the government to focus on providing funding to these groups.
Planned Parenthood has expressed strong opposition to a provision in a major piece of legislation known as the Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which prohibits federal funds to organizations related to abortion, permitting exceptions only in very limited situations. Their legal arguments largely hinge on the First Amendment.
They argue that the underlying intention of the OBBB’s clause is to disapprove of and penalize organizations that play a crucial role in the public debate surrounding abortion. The concerns highlighted in Talwani’s order, issued on July 21, reflect these arguments.
“There is a significant public interest in enforcing established laws,” Talwani stated in her opinion. She added that while social policies should comply with First Amendment rights, protecting those rights may be more important than the public interest in implementing such policies.
Talwani’s ruling is limited to specific family planning organizations and also acknowledges the restrictions on issuing broad injunctions established by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.
Trump regarded the recent Supreme Court ruling, which was a 6-3 decision, as a victory. However, its practical effects might not be as clear cut as they seem. Law professor Nicholas Bagley noted that while the ruling is a landmark one, its impact could be limited.
“There are many alternate avenues for relief that could still be pursued,” he mentioned, suggesting that relief options are available even now.
Federal judges have two primary means of blocking policies or actions from the administration. First, they can invoke the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which oversees federal regulations. If Trump attempted to implement changes through an executive order, judges could halt those actions under the APA. For instance, an executive order mandating layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already been halted because it was deemed “arbitrary and whimsical.”
The second route available to federal judges involves class action lawsuits. Recently, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted a temporary injunction against Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for specific groups.
One notable plaintiff was an individual whose asylum claim was still pending. Interestingly, this individual had been residing in the U.S. since 2024, despite claims about not being a citizen.
On July 2, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss also delivered a significant class-wide relief ruling, creating a group eligible to challenge Trump’s declarations regarding asylum restrictions for undocumented immigrants.
These declarations tightened the requirements for asylum seekers, which typically includes proving they face persecution based on various factors, such as race or political opinion. The interpretation of “persecution” is quite broad and can vary widely.
Ultimately, Moss’s ruling enables a large group of individuals who may have valid claims of persecution to join in on those claims. The Trump administration continues to encounter ongoing difficulties in the courts.
