Key facts
- Twenty-three U.S. states are suing to block new conditions on Title X family planning grants.
- The lawsuit alleges the new conditions unlawfully penalize states and providers that oppose the Trump administration's agenda.
- New requirements include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and promoting abstinence over contraception.
- States claim the policy conflicts with the Title X program's founding law and was implemented without proper rulemaking.
- Title X provides approximately $286 million annually for family planning and related health services.
A coalition of 23 U.S. states, primarily led by Democrats, has filed a lawsuit in Maryland federal court to block new conditions imposed by the Trump administration on Title X family planning grants. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday, contends that these new requirements unlawfully penalize states and providers that do not align with the administration's political priorities, specifically regarding contraception and gender-affirming care.
The states argue that the new policy, announced in April and amended last month, forces applicants to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, recognize only male and female sexes, and encourage abstinence over contraception. They assert that these conditions conflict with the 1970 law that established the Title X program, which mandates offering a broad range of counseling and prohibits patient discrimination.
Losing Title X funding, which provides approximately $286 million annually for family planning and related health services like cancer screenings and STI treatment, would have severe consequences for providers and patients. In New York alone, the funding supports 165 clinics serving over 250,000 mostly low-income patients, according to the state's Attorney General Letitia James. The lawsuit also alleges that the administration bypassed the formal federal rulemaking process, which requires public comment.
This legal challenge follows a similar lawsuit filed last month by Planned Parenthood against the Department of Health and Human Services, making comparable claims. That case is currently pending in a Washington D.C. federal court.