# Court of Appeals TORCHES Judge Who Forced Trump to FUND Planned Parenthood! Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o08kD9HOJGI Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/o08kD9HOJGI Generated: 2025-12-17T23:03:54.5+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's preliminary injunction, ruling that Appellees (Planned Parenthood affiliates) were unlikely to succeed on their merits because the funding statute does not impose punishment in the sense required for a Bill of Attainder claim, and the government's interest in reducing abortions provides a rational basis for the law under Equal Protection review. **Key Points:** - The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's preliminary injunctions that blocked Section 71113, finding Appellees unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. - The court concluded that Section 71113 does not constitute an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder because it imposes new conditions on funding, not punishment for past conduct. - The court applied rational basis review to the Equal Protection claim, finding that Congress has broad discretion in taxing and spending to promote general welfare, provided it doesn't violate other constitutional provisions. - The district court was found to have erred by applying strict scrutiny instead of rational basis review to the Equal Protection claim, as no fundamental right was implicated. - The court noted that the statute is prospective, establishing new conditions for federal funds rather than punishing past actions, unlike historical Bills of Attainder. - The court specifically vacated the district court's July 21 and July 28, 2025 orders granting preliminary injunctions. - The decision remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. ![Screenshot at 00:00: The speaker highlights the Conclusion section of the court opinion, noting the court's decision to vacate the district court's preliminary injunctions because Appellees were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/o08kD9HOJGI/00-00-00.png) **Context:** The video features a legal commentator, Andrew Branca, analyzing a court opinion concerning Section 71113, a statute enacted by Congress that withholds Medicaid funding from certain abortion providers for one year based on four criteria, primarily affecting Planned Parenthood affiliates. The case involves appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which had previously granted preliminary injunctions against enforcing Section 71113. ## Detailed Analysis The speaker reviews the conclusion of a Court of Appeals opinion regarding Section 71113, which aims to halt federal Medicaid funding for abortion providers meeting specific criteria, primarily targeting Planned Parenthood. The Court of Appeals ruled that Appellees (Planned Parenthood affiliates) were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims, leading the appellate court to vacate the district court's preliminary injunctions issued on July 21 and July 28, 2025. The court disagreed with the district court's finding that the statute was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, arguing that the law sets new prospective conditions for funding rather than imposing retrospective punishment without judicial trial. Furthermore, regarding the Equal Protection claim, the appellate court concluded that the district court erred by applying strict scrutiny; instead, rational basis review applies because no fundamental right was implicated. The court found that Congress has broad discretion under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and the statute's classification survives rational basis review. The court also noted that the statute does not impose criminal punishment but rather sets conditions on federal funding, which is permissible. The decision effectively allows the defunding statute to proceed. ### Conclusion of Appellate Ruling - Appellees are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims - We vacate the district court's July 21 and July 28, 2025 orders granting preliminary injunctions - Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ### Bill of Attainder Analysis - Section 71113 does not inflict punishment; it imposes new conditions on funding receipt - Historical Bills of Attainder involved retrospective punishment without judicial trial, unlike this prospective statute. ### Equal Protection Claim - District court erred in applying strict scrutiny; rational basis review is appropriate because no fundamental right is implicated - The statute classifies based on affiliation, which is permissible under rational basis review. ### Procedural History - Appellees sued July 7, 2025, seeking declaratory judgment and injunction; District Court granted TRO and preliminary injunction, which the government appealed. ![Screenshot at 00:00: The speaker highlights the Conclusion section of the court opinion, noting the court's decision to vacate the district court's preliminary injunctions because Appellees were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/o08kD9HOJGI/00-00-00.png) ![Screenshot at 01:06: The text defining the 2025 law enacted by Congress that withholds Medicaid funding for one year from certain abortion providers based on four criteria.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/o08kD9HOJGI/00-01-06.png) ![Screenshot at 03:03: The text detailing the Appellees' argument that the law constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder, violating the First Amendment right of association and equal protection.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/o08kD9HOJGI/00-03-03.png) ![Screenshot at 04:45: The text outlining the district court's conclusion that the statute was not 'precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest' and that Appellees demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/o08kD9HOJGI/00-04-45.png) ![Screenshot at 31:28: The final conclusion section where the Court of Appeals vacates the district court's orders granting preliminary injunctions.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/o08kD9HOJGI/00-31-28.png)