Court’s attack on Congress, president described as nothing other than ‘judicial terrorism’

A judge appointed by Barack Obama has ordered the government to continue handing out taxpayer cash to the abortionists at Planned Parenthood on no legal basis, and at least one commentator has concluded that amounts to no more or less than “judicial terrorism.”

It was commentator Nathan Stone at the Federalist who delivered that conclusion about Indira Talwani’s decision last week to order the continued cash handouts to Planned Parenthood’s abortionists.

That was despite the fact that members of Congress in the House and Senate adopted a provision that withheld federal tax money from the abortion industry giant, and it was signed into law by President Trump in the process under which “democracy,” actually a representative republic, in America works.

“Indira Talwani, an Obama-appointed judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, ushered in the next chapter of judicial supremacy when she blocked the provisions of the ‘big beautiful bill’ which deprived Planned Parenthood and its affiliate organizations of Medicaid funds,” Stone explains. “If Judge Talwani had ‘found’ those provisions ‘unconstitutional,’ or if she had found the whole reconciliation package ‘illegal’” it would be another example of judicial usurpation. Business as usual. But she didn’t do either. Talwani’s temporary restraining order commands that the executive ignore the law and keep shoveling the Benjamins to feed abortions. As Dan McLaughlin said on X, ‘You can’t argue with the judge’s reasoning because there isn’t any.'”

The order from Talwani is part of a campaign on the part of judges at the entry level courts to the federal judiciary of opposing President Donald Trump’s plans and agendas, even if delivered through ordinary and accept channels. The agenda already has prompted the Supreme Court to say those judges are exercising powers they don’t have by repeatedly demanding they have their way on policies and practices of the executive branch, instead of letting the president run that branch, as the Constitution provides.

“The surface irony of this would be comedy gold in a movie. For the last 10 years, the left’s bread and butter has been to paint Trump, his allies, his voters, and the Republican Party as fascists intent on destroying ‘our democracy.’ But, when the sacrament of abortion is in jeopardy, it does a 180 and orders the president to completely ignore a law that was duly passed and signed — textbook fascist behavior,” the commentary said.

Further, it said, Talwani’s writing “does not even try to pretend to be anything other than naked power that commands lawlessness for the sake of killing babies. Separation of powers, the rule of law, the legislative power, and the very ability of the American people to enact change through their duly elected representatives — one of the fundamental markers of self-governance — are all done away with a flick of Talwani’s pen.”

The charges against Talwani are that she makes democracy meaningless because she “or one of her clones will just put on their crowns, wave the imperial scepter of leftism, and say, ‘You can’t do that.'”

“Make no mistake: Judge Talwani is a legal terrorist. Her TRO is the judicial equivalent of an IED, which was supposed to destroy the administration by either disobeying the law or disobeying the judiciary. It’s not about the country or an alternate vision. Now, it is only about destruction — pure and sweet.”

Joining in the criticism of Talwani’s ideological agenda was Margot Cleveland, also of the Federalist.

Talwani actually issued an injunction, with no legal reasoning or basis at all, early last week. When challenged, she dissolved that and issued another, confirming her thinking she’s an “imperialist judge.”

Her first order, Cleveland wrote, “failed to provide any legal justification for her decision requiring the Trump Administration to continue disbursing Medicaid funding to all Planned Parenthood organizations.”

The Trump administration pointed out she refused to follow the “basic requirements” of such an order, so Talwani replaced her first with a second order.

Her first order was defective as it was entered on an ex parte basis without any considering of whether there was, or was not, irreparable injury or loss, any exigency requiring immediate action, and more.

“Judge Talwani attempted to rectify her errors on Friday by dissolving her initial TRO and entering an amended TRO that ‘provide[d] the court’s reasons for the emergency order.’ But rather than remedy the defective TRO, Judge Talwani’s reasoning confirms that she never should have entered a TRO in the first instance,” Cleveland wrote.

“To obtain either a TRO or a preliminary injunction, a Plaintiff must establish ‘(i) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits; (ii) the possibility that, without an injunction, the movant will suffer irreparable harm; (iii) the balance of relevant hardships as between the parties; and (iv) the effect of the court’s ruling on the public interest.’
In issuing her amended TRO, Judge Talwani focused on the merits of only one of the abortion-giant’s legal claims, namely, the Plaintiffs’ argument that Section 71113 of the Big Beautiful Bill violates their First Amendment right of association by excluding Planned Parenthood ‘affiliates’ from Medicaid funding, even though some affiliates do not provide abortions. This provision punishes affiliates based solely on their association with other Planned Parenthoods, the Plaintiffs argued. Judge Talwani agreed, finding the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of that First Amendment claim,” Cleveland explained.

However, Planned Parenthood itself, the commentary explained, “does not distinguish between the federation and affiliates, commingling funds for purposes of financial reporting. As such, Congress could reasonably consider the entity as an undivided whole in making funding decisions.”

In Talwani’s “unhinged” claims, the judge made a mistake in protecting the flow of taxpayer cash to the abortion business based on the First Amendment, but also failed to recognize there was no evidence of any “irreparable harm.”

The development was simply Talwani demanding to exercise “legislative and executive authority,” the commentary said.

Yesterday, another rogue judge tried to undermine the will of the people.

Judge Indira Talwani issued a TRO enjoining portions of the OBBB that defund Planned Parenthood.

Worse, she lied to the Judiciary Committee about how she would rule as a judge. I have the receipts. pic.twitter.com/saE5nVzCyj

— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) July 8, 2025

Judge Indira Talwani’s Unhinged Planned Parenthood Order Amounts To Judicial Terrorism https://t.co/9oU2W1XTvV

— jonathan (@davisj1) July 14, 2025

The Supreme Court ruled that district court judges cannot veto the President.

But Obama Judge Indira Talwani claimed that the One Big Beautiful Bill is unconstitutional because it cuts spending for Planned Parenthood.

This is ridiculous.

Congress has the power of the purse.… pic.twitter.com/pfdgnq4R6C

— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) July 11, 2025