New York City and Denver have thrown their support behind Planned Parenthood in a high-stakes federal court battle, filing an amicus brief Tuesday to shield the abortion giant from a new federal budget to strip it of taxpayer funding.
The coalition of 22 cities and counties, including New York and Denver, urged the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court injunction against Section 71113 of the federal Reconciliation Act, dubbed President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
The provision bars Medicaid reimbursements to abortion companies that received more than $800,000 in federal funds in 2023, a threshold designed to target Planned Parenthood’s vast network of clinics.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
Meanwhile, pro-life groups are defending the pro-life law in court.
“This case extends far beyond Planned Parenthood. At its core, this litigation challenges whether Congress retains its exclusive constitutional authority over federal spending, or whether unelected federal judges can override the spending decisions made by the people’s elected Representatives,” Nathan Moelker, senior associate counsel at the ACLJ’s Washington office, said in a statement. “It asks whether American taxpayers can be forced to subsidize organizations whose activities conflict with their deeply held moral convictions.”
The ACLJ, which filed its own merits brief backing the Trump administration’s appeal, argued that the defunding measure upholds Congress’ power to withhold subsidies for activities contrary to public policy.
“There is no constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies for abortion providers,” Moelker wrote. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while the government cannot place obstacles in the path of lawful conduct, it has no obligation to fund activities that run counter to its policy judgments.”
Planned Parenthood sued in July 2025 to block the provision, dubiously claiming it violates the Constitution’s ban on bills of attainder — legislative punishments without trial. U.S. District Judge in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction, but the 1st Circuit stayed it in August, allowing the defunding to proceed temporarily while the appeal plays out.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams decried the cuts as a threat to public health, saying they would strain local budgets and economies even though killing babies is not health care.
Denver officials echoed the concerns, joining the brief to argue that the funding ban would disrupt essential services for low-income residents and burden municipal resources. The city’s Department of Housing Stability highlighted the ripple effects on workforce participation and health outcomes in a statement announcing its participation.
“Congress’ funding decision is not a Bill of Attainder,” Moelker argued. “Planned Parenthood’s claim that Section 71113 constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder fails because Congress has imposed no punishment. Planned Parenthood remains free to operate, employ staff, and provide services — Congress simply chose not to subsidize those activities with public funds.”
The ACLJ brief further contends that forcing Congress to fund Planned Parenthood would shatter separation of powers.
“Compelling Congress to fund Planned Parenthood would violate separation of powers,” Moelker wrote. “What plaintiffs seek — a judicial command forcing Congress to appropriate funds it has declined to appropriate — would invert our constitutional design.”
