On December 12, in a 3-0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit a lower court order halting enforcement of provisions of the Big Beautiful Bill (“BBB”) that had blocked Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving Medicaid funding. Provisions of the BBB stipulated that organizations such as Planned Parenthood would not be eligible to continue to receive Medicaid funding if its member affiliates continued to provide elective abortions after October 1, 2025. The Circuit Court’s decision is important because it recognizes the limits of the Bill of Attainder Clause and Congress’s Article I authority to place conditions on federal funding.

Planned Parenthood and two of its affiliated organizations argued that the defunding provision amounted to an unlawful bill of attainder and violated their First Amendment right to associate. Accepting Planned Parenthood’s arguments, the lower court had ordered the government to restore funding. The Trump Administration quickly appealed this order, and Landmark filed an amicus brief in support.¹ The First Circuit’s unanimous ruling reflects the strength of our position, as all three of the Biden-appointed judges ruled in favor of the Trump Administration.

The Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause bars Congress from imposing punishments on individuals or groups through legislation. The Clause is derived from English Common Law, which defines a bill of attainder as the legislature’s imposition of, for example, death or banishment on individuals or a group. Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded the definition of a bill of attainder to include pains and penalties. To be a bill of attainder, a law must single out identifiable parties and impose punishment for past conduct. For example, in United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court held that Congress enacted an unconstitutional bill of attainder when it passed a statute cancelling the salaries of three named federal employees based on alleged disloyalty.² The fact that Congress singled out specific individuals based on their past conduct and imposed punishment without a judicial trial violated the Bill of Attainder Clause.

The First Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that applicable provisions of the BBB amount to a bill of attainder, as well as Planned Parenthood’s claims that the provision violates their First Amendment rights. Mirroring Landmark’s arguments, the majority held that the challenged provision does not impose fines or penalties for past conduct, does not prohibit Planned Parenthood from performing abortions, and does not single out Planned Parenthood.³ Rather, as the court explained, the law bars Medicaid funding for groups like Planned Parenthood that continued to perform elective abortions after October 1, 2025.⁴

As Landmark explains in its brief, Planned Parenthood and its member affiliates “hold the keys to their own fiscal jail cell” because they may regain eligibility for Medicaid funding by ceasing to perform elective abortions.⁵ Although the BBB’s defunding provision presents a difficult choice for Planned Parenthood, the court emphasized “[t]hat the law imposes a difficult choice on the recipient of federal funds does not demonstrate that Congress is punishing the recipient . . ..”⁶ In short, Planned Parenthood remains free to perform elective abortions, but it may not receive federal reimbursement for doing so.

The First Circuit also emphasized that the BBB’s provisions do not punish past actions or immutable associations. Planned Parenthood merely falls within the category Congress deemed necessary to advance its policy goal of reducing taxpayer funding for elective abortions through Medicaid. As the court concluded, “[a]n act imposing future burdens on only some who are similarly situated does not impose punishment for bill of attainder purposes by virtue of being underinclusive.”⁷

This decision recognizes Congress’s authority to place conditions on the receipt of federal funding to pursue legitimate policy goals. The BBB does not target Planned Parenthood or impose penalties for past conduct; therefore, it does not constitute a “punishment” that would satisfy the Appellees’ bill of attainder claims.

If the district court’s determination that the defunding provision of the BBB, a duly enacted statute passed by both chambers of Congress, were not vacated by the appellate court, the results would be absurd. Any party excluded from federal funding could challenge provisions of reconciliation bills in court, creating a distorted separation of powers in which Congress’s authority to decide how taxpayer dollars are spent is filtered through the judiciary. The First Circuit’s decision rightfully draws a distinction between punishment and permissible funding conditions, recognizing the limits of the Bill of Attainder Clause while also reaffirming Congress’s Article I authority to decide how taxpayer money is spent.