An Obama-appointed federal judge is once again standing in the way of Congress’s efforts to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani doubled down on her earlier order by issuing an amended ruling that temporarily blocks a key provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed by the Republican-led Congress, which bars abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements.

The judge’s latest move comes after she initially blocked the law hours after Planned Parenthood filed its lawsuit—with no explanation. Her updated order, filed July 12, finally offered a justification, claiming that if the provision were allowed to go into effect, it would cause “irreparable harm” to Planned Parenthood’s ability to provide services and to patients’ access to care.

Talwani argued that some Planned Parenthood clinics had already started turning Medicaid patients away or referring them elsewhere, and that low-income patients might now have to pay out-of-pocket in some states. “Disruptions to healthcare” from the law’s implementation, she wrote, warranted emergency intervention—even before a full hearing scheduled for July 18.

The Trump administration had called her original order “highly unusual” and asked the court to dissolve it. Instead, Talwani expanded her reasoning and kept the restraining order in place through at least July 21.

Her ruling goes beyond healthcare logistics and ventures directly into constitutional territory. Talwani claimed that the defunding provision—by targeting not just abortion providers but their “affiliates”—violates First Amendment protections. She asserted that it infringes on the right to “associate with others in pursuit of desired political, educational, or social ends,” implying that Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics has a right to taxpayer dollars because they are politically and organizationally connected.

While the bill does not name Planned Parenthood specifically, the organization is the only one that fits the criteria laid out in the legislation. As a result, Planned Parenthood alleges it was unfairly singled out and that the law effectively punishes the group for its political and advocacy affiliations.

In its lawsuit, the group warned that the funding cutoff could threaten the closure of nearly 200 of its clinics nationwide. The organization claimed the defunding would have “devastating effects” on operations, despite receiving a staggering $792.2 million in taxpayer funding last year—a nearly $100 million increase over the previous year. During that same timeframe, Planned Parenthood performed a record 402,230 abortions.

The Republican-authored defunding measure made use of the budget reconciliation process, meaning it passed the Senate with a simple majority and avoided the usual 60-vote threshold. While the Hyde Amendment technically bars federal funds from directly paying for abortions (except in extreme cases), conservatives have long pointed out that money is fungible and still props up abortion providers through Medicaid reimbursements and infrastructure.

Last month, the Supreme Court upheld South Carolina’s right to block Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding, ruling that the organization could not sue under federal civil rights laws. That decision had buoyed conservatives’ hopes for broader defunding efforts—but Talwani’s ruling throws cold water on those plans, at least temporarily.

The backlash has already begun. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the Senate Majority Whip, blasted the ruling, saying it’s “time to rein in rogue judges” who substitute their ideology for the law.

The case now moves forward under Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with the next round of legal arguments scheduled for July 18. Until then, the restraining order remains in effect—and Planned Parenthood keeps its Medicaid money.

The clash sets the stage for another major showdown over the future of abortion policy, judicial power, and whether unelected judges can continue to override Congress’s constitutional authority to control federal spending.