A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by pro-abortion groups claiming that new grant eligibility rules would disadvantage them when vying for public funding.
This ruling came from a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who ruled against the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania (FHCCP). The plaintiffs argued that the new requirements from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would hamper their clinics’ competitiveness.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit on June 18, 2026. The suit followed HHS’s Office of Population Affairs announcing in April a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) which stipulates that grant recipients who use abortion as a family planning method will be excluded from receiving Title X funds from fiscal year 2027 onwards.
Meagan Burrows, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, expressed disappointment over the court’s refusal to review the case’s merits, stating it could harm the millions who rely on Title X for essential family planning services. She emphasized their commitment to fighting for reproductive freedom and access to care.
The NOFO also outlined a commitment to ending diversity, equity, and inclusion measures, emphasizing that Title X funds cannot be utilized in any program where abortion is considered a method of family planning. It required that projects uphold strict separation from such activities while contributing to HHS’s mission of delivering lawful and ethical programs.
In their June complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the NOFO undermines the integrity of the Title X grant process, alleging it allows the government to divert funds to entities that align with its political objectives instead of adhering to Congress’s directive to provide a broad range of voluntary family planning services.
Judge Jennifer Wilson, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, ruled the claims moot and granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, meaning that while this case has been temporarily closed, it could be refiled later.
Judge Wilson remarked that the plaintiffs claimed the NOFO unfairly favored or disfavored certain applicants, but she pointed out that this is a typical aspect of competitive grant processes, which are designed to identify the best-suited candidates for funding.
Wilson further clarified that the plaintiffs do not experience a real “competitive disadvantage” because the NOFO presents a uniform set of criteria that all applicants will follow. She noted that ambiguous scoring criteria apply equally to all participants and do not detract from competition more than explicit criteria established by the court would.
As of now, neither the ACLU, NFPRHA, nor FHCCP has provided any comments to the Daily Caller News Foundation regarding this decision.
