A federal judge dismissed a challenge to HHS Title X funding rules, leaving intact criteria barring funds from programs where abortion is used for family planning.
The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that the Pennsylvania court found the plaintiffs’ claims moot and granted the government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. That leaves the groups free to file the claims again.
The dispute centers on Title X, the federal family-planning grant program. HHS announced new funding criteria in April for grants beginning in fiscal year 2027.
The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania sued on June 18. The ACLU and its Pennsylvania chapter represented them.
The groups wanted the court to intervene before HHS awarded the grants. Instead, Judge Jennifer Wilson found that their objections to the competitive process did not amount to a current injury warranting judicial action.
Wilson rejected the claim that HHS had unlawfully tilted the grant contest through its scoring rules. She described that kind of advantage as a basic feature of any competitive funding program.
“Plaintiffs allege that the NOFO ‘stacks the deck’ against otherwise qualified applicants. That is not a real and immediate harm; it is an inherent feature of competitive grant programs.”
The notice of funding opportunity, often shortened to NOFO, tells applicants how HHS will score and award the grants. Wilson said such standards will naturally help some applicants and hurt others.
“In any grant competition, the criteria for selecting awardees are going to favor some applicants and disfavor others. That is the point of a competitive process, to identify the applicants best suited for the grant.”
The ruling fits a broader run of politically charged court disputes, including the recent Missouri map ruling. Policy groups increasingly turn to judges when agencies set terms they oppose.
But Wilson did not rule on the full merits of the plaintiffs’ attack against HHS. A dismissal as moot means the court found no live dispute requiring a decision at that stage.
The “without prejudice” language matters for the same reason. It ended this case without permanently closing the courthouse door to another filing.
The HHS notice states that federal funds cannot support programs where abortion serves as a method of family planning. It also requires grant recipients to separate Title X projects from prohibited activities.
HHS said recipients should show how their projects support “life-affirming, lawful, and ethical program delivery.” The funding notice also committed the department to ending diversity, equity and inclusion policies and practices.
Those conditions reflect the executive branch’s authority to set priorities within the law, though courts regularly hear challenges to those decisions. A separate SNAP policy ruling shows how quickly a judge can disrupt an administration’s plans.
The family-planning groups argued that HHS had distorted the grant process to direct money toward organizations that fit the administration’s political goals. Their complaint accused the department of departing from Congress’s family-planning mandate.
The complaint also claimed the criteria would prevent a fair contest among qualified applicants. Wilson answered that criticism directly: Every competitive grant uses standards that distinguish winners from those who do not receive money.
That same question, where agency discretion ends and unlawful policy begins, also appears in fights over constitutional rights. The recent New Jersey gun ruling offers another example of courts judging government limits.
Wilson called the HHS standards generally applicable criteria used to award points. She also found that unclear scoring terms would affect the competition no differently than clearer criteria ordered by a court.
President Donald Trump nominated Wilson to the federal judiciary in 2019. She serves on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Meagan Burrows, senior staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, criticized the dismissal after the court declined to review the underlying challenge.
“We are deeply disappointed that the court refused to review this case on the merits and protect the Title X program from the Trump administration’s attempt to undermine it.”
Burrows called the decision “legally wrong” and warned that it could harm millions of patients who rely on Title X services. She said the ACLU would continue trying to protect access to care through Title X providers.
That criticism does not change what the court decided. The plaintiffs asked a federal judge to stop funding criteria before the grant process produced the injury they feared, and Wilson found that insufficient.
The decision is another reminder that political conflict does not automatically create a valid court claim. A recent immunity dispute likewise turned on legal limits rather than partisan demands.
Neither plaintiff organization responded to requests for comment, and the record provided no announcement that either group planned to refile. For now, the HHS funding criteria remain in place.
Federal grants belong to the taxpayers, not to any advocacy group with a preferred political program. Competition requires standards, and losing under those standards does not create a right to public money.