Close Menu

Another Obama Activist Judge Gets Smacked Down By An Appeals Court After Outrageous Trump Ruling

By COURT

After President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wasted no time jumping in to protect one of the Democratic Party’s sacred cows: Planned Parenthood. She immediately blocked the provision that would have cut off their federal funding.

In her ruling, Talwani claimed that defunding Planned Parenthood somehow “burdens the exercise of Planned Parenthood Federation and its Members’ First Amendment rights of association,” triggering strict-scrutiny review.

That ruling, of course, was unconstitutional nonsense. Congress holds the power of the purse — not Planned Parenthood, not activist judges, and certainly not Indira Talwani. Lawmakers have every right to defund any program or organization they choose, including Planned Parenthood, no matter how loudly the Left insists otherwise.

Talwani’s July decision didn’t survive long. By September, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned her ruling, knocking down the fantasy that a taxpayer-funded organization has a First Amendment “right” to federal money.

“Notwithstanding the contrary conclusion reached by the district court after its careful consideration of the matter, we conclude that defendants have met their burden to show their entitlement to a stay of the preliminary injunctions pending the disposition of their appeals of the same,” that ruling said at the time.

That should have been the end of the matter but the pro-abortion left doesn’t take no for an answer. States then sued over the provision in Talwani’s court, of course, and she ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood on December 2. Here’s what Politico reported:

A federal judge has again blocked a provision Congress passed in July that stripped federal Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood affiliates, ruling that the language likely places an unconstitutional burden on states to apply vague criteria about the scope of the ban.

Acting on a lawsuit filed in July by 22 Democratic-led states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday prohibiting the Trump administration from requiring states to figure out which of their health care providers are covered by the ban and stop funding the non-abortion services the clinics provide to Medicaid patients.

Talwani said the Constitution requires Congress to be clear when imposing requirements related to federal funding, so state officials can decide whether to accept what amounts to a restriction on their usual authority.

But again, the activist Talwani has been grandly smacked down:

The temporary administrative stay of the First Circuit’s order reads:

This is an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction on December 2, 2025, in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1292(a). Defendant-Appellants have filed in this court a “Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Administrative Stay” (the “Motion”). The Motion contains two requests; the sole request we address in this order is the request for an administrative stay. After careful review, we conclude that an administrative stay is appropriate. See United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring) (discussing considerations relevant to administrative stays). Accordingly, the request for an immediate administrative stay is granted. We intend to rule on the request for a stay pending appeal promptly.

Mind you, the First Circuit is populated with Obama and Biden judges and even they see how patently ridiculous Talwani’s rulings are. Noted one X user:

When a district judge’s injunction is so far beyond the legal mainstream that even an all Democratic appointed First Circuit panel Barron, Gelpi, Montecalvo, slaps it down within hours, it’s not just getting reversed. It’s a flashing red warning that the judge has abandoned any pretense of neutrality and is simply legislating from the bench.

And by the way, I agree with this:

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Should Illegal Immigrants be Deported?*
This poll subscribes you to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe any time.