National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. et al.

In April, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Title X Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for fiscal year (FY) 2027 designed to corrupt a merit-based grant competition based on politics, prioritizing ideology over quality and qualifications. The Title X NOFO is written to enable the federal government to push highly qualified Title X providers out of the program and bring in new grantees based solely on their alignment with the Trump administration’s political priorities, some of which have nothing to do with the Title X program, the services Congress intended for it to provide, or the patients it is intended to serve.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of NFPRHA and FHCCP by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (ACLU-PA), challenges aspects of the FY 2027 NOFO that contradict the Title X statute, regulations, and guidance. For example, the Title X statute requires HHS to consider specific factors when evaluating an applicant for family planning grants, including the number of patients to be served, the extent to which family planning services are needed locally, and the capacity of applicants to make rapid and effective use of the grant funds. But under the FY 2027 NOFO, applicants can be rejected at a threshold stage if they do not sufficiently align with the Trump administration’s political priorities. As a result, their applications would never be considered under the factors Congress intended or be judged on the merits.

Furthermore, under the Title X regulations, Title X grantees must serve patients in an inclusive, culturally appropriate, and nondiscriminatory manner. The Title X regulations also require that grantees ensure that transgender people are “fully included and can actively participate in and benefit from family planning.” These requirements are in direct conflict with the NOFO’s mandate to align with the Trump administration’s agenda that opposes diversity, equity, and inclusion, particularly for transgender people.

The lawsuit also claims that the federal government acted arbitrarily and capriciously, including by relying on factors outside of what Congress intended for review of Title X grants. Further, the challenged aspects of the NOFO are an unjustified reversal of the federal government's prior positions.

This lawsuit was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.