Editor’s note: This column was coauthored by Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

California and Rhode Island judges won our October and November “Dishonorable Conduct Award” for their judicial misbehavior.  

The December award winner, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, is a super legislator who identifies as a federal judge. In a ruling in July, Talwani, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts — call us shocked — tried to override Congress’ constitutional authority over the federal purse and force taxpayers to subsidize Planned Parenthood.  

Some judges who have tried to use injunctions to change the law were ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court. Talwani was so out of line, even the very liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit caught it first. In a Dec. 8 order, it administratively stayed her injunction. 

Congress created the Medicaid program in 1965 and provides most of the funding, appropriating $407 billion for the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30

States administer the program, which reimburses health care providers for covered medical services.

While Congress has long prohibited the use of Medicaid funds to directly pay for abortions, taxpayers indirectly subsidize abortions when clinics receive Medicaid reimbursement for other services. Money, after all, is fungible. 

The Budget Reconciliation Act, signed into law in July 2025, makes entities providing abortions ineligible for Medicaid reimbursement for any medical services for one year. 

The national Planned Parenthood Federation and two of its state affiliates sued, making arguments, which, under a simple and straightforward reading of the law, are complete nonsense. 

They claim, for example, the law applies to entities, like some Planned Parenthood affiliates, which advocate for abortion but do not perform them. The law, however, defines a “prohibited entity” as one “provid[ing] …  abortions.” 

Planned Parenthood piled one bogus argument on top of another.

By applying to entities that do not provide abortions (it doesn’t) — they said — the law effectively prohibits them from even associating or affiliating with those that do. Because affiliation is supposedly “expressive,” this somehow violates the First Amendment. 

The law, however, is crystal clear. It prohibits Medicaid reimbursement to entities providing abortion. Period.

It is pure fantasy to claim that Medicaid also prohibits reimbursement to entities that only associate or affiliate with those providing abortions. Planned Parenthood just made that up out of thin air.  

Planned Parenthood also claimed  this Medicaid exclusion was a prohibited “bill of attainder,” which the Supreme Court has defined under our Constitution as a law that “punishes without trial specifically designated persons.” 

While the law describes a category of entity that may not receive Medicaid reimbursement, it does not designate or name any individual or organization in particular. 

Planned Parenthood claimed the law indirectly identified them by applying to “affiliates” which, as everyone knows, is how Planned Parenthood is organized.

Had Congress not passed the Budget Reconciliation Act, of course, Planned Parenthood would no doubt have argued that the Medicaid exclusion does not apply to any of its state affiliates. They can’t have it both ways. 

Talwani bought — or at least claimed to have bought — every bogus legal argument Planned Parenthood was selling and issued an injunction preventing enforcement of the Medicaid exclusion to Planned Parenthood and all of its affiliates

In her opinion, Talwani insisted the Medicaid exclusion amounts to “punishment” and agreed with Planned Parenthood that it literally prevents them from serving Medicaid patients at all. This is obviously false for multiple reasons.

The law says nothing about who Planned Parenthood may serve, but only whether Medicaid will pay for the services they provide.

There are many bizarre conclusions and leaps of illogic in Talwani’s opinion, but we will mention just one more.

She claimed the Medicaid exclusion does not have a “non-punitive legislative purpose.”

How about making sure that taxpayers do not subsidize abortions? As mentioned, federal law has for decades prohibited Medicaid funds from being used to directly pay for abortions.

A budget reconciliation law in 2017 contained a similar Medicaid exclusion; attempts like this to prevent indirect abortion subsidies are nothing new. 

Besides, under the Constitution, it is totally within the discretion and authority of Congress — not a lone federal district court judge — to decide what programs it will appropriate money for and what services it will or will not pay for.   

Talwani acknowledged that many healthcare providers participate in the Medicaid program but do not provide abortions.

Planned Parenthood chose to do so but wants to be treated as if it doesn’t. It is evident that neither Planned Parenthood nor Talwani like the Medicaid exclusion and wish Congress had not enacted it. 

It’s not surprising that Talwani’s injunction was promptly put on hold; it hardly qualifies as a judicial decision at all. It’s a policy move, something judges have no authority to do. If she doesn’t like it, then she should resign her judicial seat, run for Congress and try to change that policy decision.

Instead, Talwani abused her power as a federal judge to interfere in a legislative choice made by Congress and signed into law by the duly elected president of the United States. It is hard to conceive of a more anti-democratic action than that, which is why we have given her the December “Dishonorable Conduct” award.

---

Republished from The Daily Signal.