Protesters in Milwaukee take part in a 2019 march demanding action to address climate change. Fifteen young people are suing the state of Wisconsin for harming their future by allowing pollution that hastens climate change. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)(

Kaarina Dunn has grown up hearing stories of the Wisconsin winters her parents and grandparents got to enjoy. Winters with enough snow cover that the family of ski-enthusiasts could get on the slopes from Thanksgiving to Easter. 

But despite the state’s continued connection with ice and snow, winters like those of her family’s past are gone. Climate change has caused Wisconsin’s winters to warm more than any other season. A number of recent winters have seen drought conditions with little to no snow across the northern part of the state — severely damaging winter tourism and canceling or modifying events such as the American Birkebeiner. While data shows that the amount of snowfall on average is similar to decades past, the weather doesn’t stay as cold throughout the winter, meaning that the snow melts before it can accumulate to the truly deep levels of previous generations. 

“I hear all these great stories about how they got to ski over Thanksgiving, how they skied past Easter time, how they went on all these great trips around the state of Wisconsin to all these ski hills, mountains, all these amazing places,” Dunn, a 17-year-old Onalaska resident, tells the Wisconsin Examiner. “And I can’t help but feel incredibly saddened by this. I will never experience these things. These are family traditions, trips that my family would go on, with family members, with friends, and do all these amazing and fun things. And honestly, I do feel left out. I feel let down by my state. I can no longer enjoy these things due to the direct results of fossil fuels in the environment.” 

Dunn is one of 15 young people suing the state of Wisconsin, arguing that state laws violate their constitutional rights and worsen climate change. The lawsuit mirrors a similar lawsuit from children in Montana, who successfully argued that the state had to consider the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impact of permits involving fossil fuels. 

The children are represented in the lawsuit by Madison-based Midwest Environmental Advocates and Oregon-based Our Children’s Trust. 

In Wisconsin, the suit argues that state lawmakers have made a number of declarations that the state’s energy production should be decarbonized and the greenhouse gas emissions of that production should be reduced, but state laws prevent that from happening. 

The state’s law for siting power plants requires that the state Public Service Commission determine that “[t]he proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact on other environmental values such as, but not limited to, ecological balance, public health and welfare, historic sites, geological formations, the aesthetics of land and water and recreational use.” However the law also prohibits the PSC from considering air pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions, in that determination. 

Additionally, the state set a goal in 2005 that 10% of Wisconsin’s energy come from renewable sources by 2015. That goal was met in 2013. However, now that the goal has been met, state law treats it as a ceiling on renewable energy the PSC can require. 

“The Commission cannot require any electric provider to increase its percentage of renewable energy generation above the required level,” the lawsuit states, meaning that for more than a decade, Wisconsin’s energy regulators have been unable to push the state’s power companies to develop more renewable energy sources. 

Coal and natural gas make up 75% of the energy produced in Wisconsin and renewable sources make up 17%. 

Skylar Harris, an attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, says that children today are going to spend most of their lives dealing with the effects of climate change on their health and lifestyles yet don’t yet have the ability to vote and influence environmental policy. 

“I think people are really starting to acknowledge the direness of the situation that we’re in and the situation that climate change is causing, and how it impacts our inherent rights such as life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Harris says. “And courts are really starting to see that without the right to a stable climate, which is what we’re arguing for in this case, the rights to life, the rights to liberty, the rights to the pursuit of happiness, they mean nothing, because people can’t pursue them to the fullest extent.” 

Harris says that if the lawsuit is successful, she believes that the PSC will use its new authority to deny permits for new or expanded fossil fuel burning power plants and push the state’s power companies to expand their renewable capacities. 

In the Montana lawsuit, officials argued that the state can’t be held responsible for the effects of climate change on the children in that lawsuit because climate change is caused by emissions from across the globe. Harris says that yes, climate change is a global problem, but it gets fixed by individual governments doing something about it. 

“Climate change is a global problem, but there is no such thing as a global government,” she says. “So if we are to address this global issue, that means every individual, every business and every government, including the state of Wisconsin, has to step forward and do its part. And that’s what we’re trying to make sure is happening with this lawsuit.”

The 15 children in the lawsuit represent a wide swathe of Wisconsin. They live in urban and rural parts of the state and include athletes who have had wildfire smoke affect their sports, farm kids who have had droughts and heavy rains affect their families’ livelihoods and members of the state’s Native American tribes who have seen their cultural traditions put at risk. 

Dunn has spent much of her childhood fighting for environmental causes as president of her local 4-H club and has won three grants for environmentally focused projects from the Bloomberg Philanthropies Climate Action Fund. She says she joined the lawsuit because it can help her community and kids like her across the state. 

“I began my environmental work because I always believed in doing the right thing,” she says. “I believe in fighting for my community, fighting for my family, fighting for my siblings, fighting for everyone, fighting for youth and fighting for families.”

She adds that the PSC “knows that what they are doing is wrong. The governor and the Wisconsin Legislature have indicated that they want renewable energy, and the Public Service Commission simply isn’t changing the laws, and the Legislature isn’t changing the laws.” 

Dunn’s family has lived western Wisconsin’s Driftless Region for generations and she spent most of her childhood in Vernon County. She says the Mississippi River is “almost a family member.”

But massive rain events causing flooding and erosion triggered a massive boulder to tumble down a bluff and into her backyard, making her family fear that it wasn’t safe in their home anymore. They moved north to La Crosse County. 

“We felt very unsafe in the childhood home that I planned to live my entire life in. We made the difficult decision to move cities, move counties, move school districts,” she says. 

A member of her school’s tennis team, Dunn says hotter summers and poor air quality caused by wildfires elsewhere on the continent have forced her to change how and when she practices. Flooding has prevented her and her family from swimming off the dock at her grandparents’ home and affected the work done at their walnut tree farm. 

Dunn says that for her, joining the lawsuit is about standing up and trying to force her state government to admit it has a role to play in mitigating climate change and responding to the ways in which climate change has harmed her life and the lives of the other kids in the suit. 

“Ultimately, our country knows the science that is creating climate change, the fossil fuel industry, and especially Wisconsin, they can no longer stand behind saying, ‘There’s nothing we can do. We don’t know about it. There’s nothing that we can do,’” she says. “But ultimately, we have the science and technology to make changes and to save my life and my future children’s life and have a safe and healthy environment.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A 3-year-old girl gets an MMR vaccine at a clinic in Texas in March. Texas was among the states with the most public funding grants canceled by the Trump administration earlier this year. (Photo by Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)

After the Trump administration slashed billions in state and local public health funding from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this year, the eventual impact on states split sharply along political lines.

Democratic-led states that sued to block the cuts kept much of their funding, while Republican-led states lost the bulk of theirs, according to a new analysis from health research organization KFF.

The uneven fallout underscores how politics continues shaping health care in the United States. The nearly 700 CDC grants were worth about $11 billion and had been allocated by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, state and local health departments had spent or planned to spend the money not just on COVID-related efforts, but also on prevention of other infectious diseases, support for mental health and substance use, shoring up aging public health infrastructure, and other needs.

The CDC grant terminations initially affected red and blue states about evenly, according to KFF. California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Massachusetts — all led by Democrats — had among the largest numbers of terminated grants.

But then nearly two dozen blue states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration in April, asking the court to block the grant terminations. They argued the federal government lacked the authority to rescind funding it had already allocated.

“The Trump administration’s illegal and irresponsible decision to claw back life-saving health funding is an attack on the well-being of millions of Americans,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in an April statement announcing the lawsuit.

“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients.”

A federal judge sided with the blue states and blocked the cancellations  — but she limited her injunction to the jurisdictions that filed in the lawsuit.

Nearly 80% of the grant cuts have now been restored in blue states, according to the KFF analysis, compared with less than 5% in red states.

Now four of the five states with the most canceled grants are led by Republicans: Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. California, which is dominated by Democrats, kept all of its grants that had been initially terminated.

In the West and Midwest, Democratic-led Colorado — which joined the lawsuit — had 10 of its 11 grant terminations reversed. Its Republican-led neighbors that did not sue, including Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, lost all of their grants, according to the KFF analysis.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the photo caption. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook will challenge her removal, her attorney said Tuesday, arguing President Donald Trump “has no authority” to fire her.

Trump announced late Monday that he would fire Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, over allegations that she falsified documents to obtain a favorable mortgage rate. She has not been charged with a crime. 

Cook has consistently voted not to lower interest rates, rejecting requests Trump has made of the independent central banking board.

Cook’s attorney, Abbe David Lowell of Lowell & Associates, said in a statement to States Newsroom that she would sue to block the firing. Former president Joe Biden appointed Cook in 2022. Her term ends in 2038.

“President Trump has no authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook,” Lowell said. “His attempt to fire her, based solely on a referral letter, lacks any factual or legal basis.”

Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, referred Cook’s mortgage application to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Pulte has made similar accusations against political enemies of the president.

Pulte has accused New York Attorney General Letitia James, who investigated Trump’s business dealings and won a finding of fraud in state court, and California U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, who led the investigation into Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, of mortgage fraud.

Trump posted a letter on social media, arguing that the allegations of Cook’s mortgage fraud had called “into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” 

He said the Federal Reserve Act gave him the authority to dismiss a governor for gross misconduct. 

Trump’s fight with Fed

The president defended his decision to dismiss Cook to reporters during a more-than-three-hour Cabinet meeting. 

“We need people that are 100% on board,” Trump said, adding that he’s already considering someone else for the job.

Cook is not the only Federal Reserve Board member Trump has trained his criticism on. He has long gone after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell for not lowering interest rates. 

Trump has pushed for lower interest rates to boost the economy, but rates have remained lower amid concerns that the president’s tariffs will produce price hikes. 

“I think we have to have lower interest rates,” Trump said Tuesday. 

Dems defend Fed independence

The dismissal has drawn outrage from economists and Democrats, including the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Yvette D. Clarke of New York.

“President Trump is attempting to oust Dr. Lisa Cook — the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board — with no credible evidence of wrongdoing,” she said in a statement.

“Let’s be clear: this is a racist, misogynistic, and unlawful attack on the integrity and independence of the Federal Reserve,” Clarke said. “It is a dangerous attempt to politicize and exert control over the central bank — one that will only continue to damage the economy, harm hardworking Americans, and undermine our credibility on the world stage.”

Heather Boushey, a top economist under the Biden administration, said in a statement that Trump’s move to fire Cook undermines the independence of the Federal Reserve. 

“It is clear from his actions that he does not believe he is bound by rule of law, but can — and will — intimidate experts to bend to his own ends,” Boushey said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a late Monday statement that any attempt to fire Cook “shreds the independence of the Fed and puts every American’s savings and mortgage at risk.”

“This brazen power grab must be stopped by the courts before Trump does permanent damage to national, state, and local economies,” Schumer said. “And if the economy comes crashing down, if families lose their savings and Main Street pays the price, Donald Trump will own every ounce of the wreckage and devastation families feel.”

The top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, Richard Neal of Massachusetts, slammed the president, calling Cook’s firing unlawful. 

“President Trump’s illegal removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook is (an) economic assault,” Neal said in a statement. “Instead of taking responsibility for his own economic failures, he’s manufacturing a villain to blame. As seen around the world, politicizing the central bank means rampant inflation, higher mortgage rates, unstable retirement accounts, and more uncertainty for the people. All of which will threaten the financial security of every American.” 

A tragic crash involving a Tesla Cybertruck has now turned into a courtroom battle. More than a year after Michael Sheehan lost his life in a single-vehicle accident, his family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both Tesla and a Texas bar, arguing that both share responsibility for what happened.

According to the complaint, filed in Harris County District Court, Sheehan owned the Cybertruck for just 102 days when the crash happened. He left the Barn Whiskey Bar in Cypress, Texas, and crashed about seven miles away. The Tesla left the road, hit a culvert, and burst into flames.

More: Witness Says Cybertruck Doors Wouldn’t Open In Fatal California Crash

At the time of the accident, it was unclear what caused the crash. Investigators openly admitted that just identifying the body was difficult due to the heat of the fire. Now, we have a little more insight into potentially contributing factors.

Claims Against The Bar

Sheehan’s family says that the Barn Whiskey Bar over-served Sheehan despite him being “clearly intoxicated.” In fact, the lawsuit goes as far as to say that “it was apparent to the provider that MICHAEL SHEEHAN was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.”

Interestingly, the family also blames Tesla because it says the Cybertruck itself is dangerous. According to the lawsuit, the “battery cell chemistry used is hyper volatile and susceptible to thermal runaway.” The family says that the automaker could have used “battery cell chemistry with slower thermal propagation readily available, which allows longer time to escape post-crash.”

The family goes on to cite other things it sees as defects, like the battery modules, the packs, the location of the vents in those modules and packs, and even the door handles in the truck that are “unreasonably difficult to locate in an emergency.”

What The Family Seeks

Essentially, the family believes that if the fire had spread more slowly and if egress had been easier, Sheehan would’ve escaped. To that end, it’s seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000. All that said, it’s also worth noting that the Cybertruck has the highest safety rating (five-star) from the NHTSA.

HT: CarComplaints

When Tesla launched the Foundation Series version of the Cybertruck, it promised that it would come with a special roof-mounted LED off-road light bar. However, a newly filed lawsuit in the US contends that many owners did not receive these light bars, and says that some wouldn’t have purchased their trucks had they known the light bar wouldn’t be included.

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Eric Schwartz in California. He alleges that he purchased a Tesla Cybertruck Cyberbeast in December 2023 and paid an extra $20,000 for the Foundation Series version. These vehicles were supposed to be equipped with several upgrades, including the light bar positioned just above the windshield.

Read: Tesla’s Big Promise On Self-Driving Just Opened The Door To Lawsuits

However, according to Schwartz, his Cybertruck was delivered without the LED light bar, and while he has repeatedly contacted the automaker, it has apparently refused to give it to him.

The lawsuit contends that the plaintiff suffered an ‘injury in fact’ because Tesla took his money but did not provide the products it had promised. Through the class action, Schwartz aims to represent all Cybertruck purchasers in California who bought a model that was supposed to include the off-road light bar, but was not delivered with one.

The class action also claims that buyers may not have purchased their Cybertrucks had they known Tesla was advertising the light bars without the intention of delivering them with the vehicles.

Just Another Lawsuit

This isn’t the only recent lawsuit to be filed against Tesla in California. Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the automaker must answer to a certified class action that alleges the automaker misled drivers about the self-driving abilities of its vehicles. The lawsuit claims that Tesla failed to live up to the promises made by the company on its website, in blog posts, on social media, and in comments made by boss Elon Musk.

Touch-sensitive steering wheel buttons seemed futuristic when Volkswagen introduced them, but they’ve sparked more frustration than admiration. Now, according to a new class action lawsuit in the US, these capacitive controls may not just be inconvenient – they could pose a genuine safety risk.

Read: VW Getting Rid Of Dreaded Touch-Sensitive Controls On Steering Wheels

A few years back, Volkswagen admitted that touch-sensitive steering wheel buttons were a misstep and pledged to return to physical switches in future models. That decision, however, does little for current owners still stuck with controls that the common consensus is that they are far too finicky.

According to the lawsuit, these overly sensitive controls mean it’s possible to automatically engage the Adaptive Cruise Control with a “mere light brush of the hand,” potentially putting drivers in dangerous situations.

Focus on the ID.4

The case is focused on VW ID.4 models equipped with these capacitive buttons and names two plaintiffs who are reportedly now “terrified and hesitant” to drive their vehicles. The class action also alleges that VW has failed to disclose the alleged defect, nor has it offered its customers suitable repairs or replacements free of charge, or even offered to reimburse its customers.

It’s also been alleged that VW has known about the problem because of customer complaints, internal records, and information sent from dealers.

The plaintiffs involved assert that Volkswagen is guilty of common law fraud by omission, alongside breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit has been filed in a New Jersey federal court and also asserts that the company has violated consumer protection laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

While it’s been almost three years since VW said it’d ditch its capacitive steering wheel controls, we will have to wait until the launch of the all-electric ID.2all before physical steering wheel buttons make a return. As such, it’ll likely take the German brand several years to completely phase out the haptic switches from the rest of its model range.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Trump was joined by, left to right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former Executive Chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and Oracle CTO Larry Ellison. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Democratic lawmakers argued in a new legal filing this week that President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs usurped congressional power, and they urged a federal appellate court to strike down the duties on foreign imports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments over some of Trump’s tariffs after a lower court blocked them in May. Despite being tied up in court, Trump continued threatening tariffs Wednesday on numerous trading partners, including a 50% import tax on goods from Brazil.

Nearly 200 lawmakers signed onto the amicus brief Tuesday, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump triggered the duties, “does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.”

The lawmakers argued that Trump’s unprecedented use of IEEPA violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

“This reflects the Framers’ interest in ensuring the most democratically accountable branch — the one closest to the People — be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs,” wrote the 191 Democratic members of Congress, citing the Federalist Papers, in their 65-page brief.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

‘Economic chaos,’ price hikes cited

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, co-led the brief with Oregon’s Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also co-led, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Joe Neguse of Colorado, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

In a statement Wednesday, Shaheen said Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high.”

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs ignores that he does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax increase in decades on Americans. This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs,” Shaheen said.

May decision

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

The lead business plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. Other plaintiffs include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

Triple-digit tariff

Trump used IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced tariffs on nearly every other country on April 2 in what he dubbed as “Liberation Day.”

Tariffs reached staggering levels on major U.S. trading partners, including 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea and 20% on the European Union.

The announcement wiped trillions from markets, which have largely recovered. Trump delayed all but a 10% base tariff for 90 days on every country except China. Trump fueled a trade war with the massive Asian nation, peaking at a 145% tariff rate, but then temporarily settling between 10% and 55%, depending on the good.

Even before Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” announcement, small business owners from around the U.S. told States Newsroom they were bracing for potentially devastating economic effects.

The trade court’s ruling — a pending appeals litigation — does not apply to tariffs Trump imposed under other statutes, including national security-related duties on foreign automobiles, as well as steel and aluminum. Some of the steel tariffs, imposed during Trump’s first term, were left in place under former President Joe Biden.

A 2024 provision under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects reproductive health information from disclosure to law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access. (Photo by Dave Whitney/Getty Images)

Two pending lawsuits over a 2024 federal rule protecting certain reproductive health information from disclosure are on hold while the Trump administration decides whether to appeal a Texas judge’s June decision that declared the rule unlawful and void.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an opinion nullifying the federal rule that shielded reproductive health information from law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access. In this case, Dr. Carmen Purl argued that the U.S. Health and Human Services rule conflicted with the laws requiring her to report child abuse. Purl said in court documents she believes abortion and gender-affirming care fall under the definitions of child abuse.

Purl lives in the judicial district where Kacsmaryk — who has taken anti-abortion stances in the past — is the only judge. His ruling applied nationwide and took effect immediately.

Without the rule, law enforcement officials in states with abortion bans may issue subpoenas for records related to reproductive health care obtained legally in another state, as some have already recently tried to do. According to health policy nonprofit KFF, 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws limiting what reproductive health information can be obtained, but others with legal abortion access do not, such as New Hampshire and Virginia.

Abortion-rights advocates say it’s largely an intimidation tactic meant to sow fear in patients and providers. Since the Dobbs decision in 2022,  anti-abortion attorney Jonathan Mitchell filed nine petitions in Texas seeking to legally question abortion funds, providers and researchers, and two individual women who sought abortions in other states, according to the Texas Tribune.

Carmel Shachar, a Harvard law professor who has extensively researched data privacy and health policy, said it’s possible for a patient to travel to a state with legal access and have that information stored in their medical records that is shared with their providers back home.

“Without the reproductive privacy rule, the concern will be, ‘OK, will some of these states that have taken a very strong stance against abortion be able to pinpoint where residents of their states travel to receive abortion care?’” Shachar said.

Tennessee plaintiffs push for separate ruling after Texas decision

Two lawsuits challenging the legality of the rule are frozen at least until the government’s Aug. 18 deadline to appeal. One case is in Missouri, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the other. Paxton’s office had also challenged the legality of the underlying privacy rule or HIPAA established in 2000, which could have opened more avenues for state investigations if a judge agreed to throw it out. But according to recent court filings, the state is no longer asking the court to do that.

A Tennessee lawsuit includes 17 other states that heavily restrict or ban abortion as plaintiffs. Their attorneys general asked the court to find the 2024 rule unlawful because they said it impedes their right to investigate cases of waste, fraud and abuse. In the most recent court brief, attorneys for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the case can still be decided by U.S. District Judge Katherine Crytzer, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump.

Until judgment is affirmed on appeal and no further appellate review is available or the deadline to appeal passes, “the plaintiff states’ claims remain live and ready for this court to resolve,” the brief said.

Legal organization continues attempts to intervene so they can appeal

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) allows law enforcement to obtain health information for investigation purposes. But the addition of the 2024 provision under former Democratic President Joe Biden prohibited disclosure of protected health information in investigations against any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, or facilitating reproductive health care, to impose criminal or civil liabilities for that conduct, or to identify the person involved in seeking or obtaining that care. It also applied to gender-affirming care.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment. Whether it appeals Kacsmaryk’s ruling is in question, as the Justice Department under Trump did not address whether it thought the 2024 rule was proper and lawful prior to Kacsmaryk’s decision. Attorneys instead said they were reviewing the rule but had no other updates. In the Missouri and Tennessee cases, DOJ attorneys have argued for dismissal for other legal reasons, but also have not defended the 2024 rule itself.

In March, the DOJ dropped the case that argued the federal law mandating stabilizing emergency care should apply to those who need emergency abortion care. And in early June, U.S. Health and Human Services rescinded guidance that said that care should be required in emergencies.

Attorneys for Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, are representing Doctors for America and the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, and attempted to intervene in the case because they did not expect the government to defend the rule. If they were allowed to intervene, they could appeal Kacsmaryk’s opinion striking down the rule regardless of the Trump administration’s decision.

Kacsmaryk denied their motion, while a decision in the other three cases is pending. Carrie Flaxman, senior legal adviser for Democracy Forward, said they have appealed that denial to a higher court. Given that the Department of Justice attorneys chose not to defend the rule on the merits in court proceedings, Flaxman said, she thinks they have a good argument for appeal.

Repealing the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the blueprint document for the next presidential administration published by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Several prominent anti-abortion organizations were part of the panel that drafted Project 2025, and many of the individuals involved in writing the 900-page document now work for the Trump administration.

Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.

Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on page 597 of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.

While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.

“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a public statement.

The organization identified 200 of its clinics in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.

The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close. 

Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights. 

“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”

The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.

“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”

“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”

Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says

Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”

Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.

In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.

“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.

In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.

The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.

“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”