Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration’s Unlawful Overhaul of Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program
Ruling Halts Ideologically-Driven Effort to Dismantle Evidence-Based Sex Education
Washington, D.C. — A federal judge today granted in part a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to gut the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPPP), a bipartisan-supported program that has helped drive down teen pregnancy rates for more than 15 years. The ruling in Hennepin County, MN v. Department of Health and Human Services halts the administration’s effort to force grantees into non-evidence-based, abstinence-only curricula.
The TPPP was initially authorized by Congress in 2009 with bipartisan support. Since that time, teen pregnancy rates have fallen significantly, according to federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
As the court held in today’s ruling, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot lawfully “impose conditions on grant recipients that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained. The preliminary record suggests that HHS has done just that. Through the TPP, Congress sought to fund a range of evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention strategies, not just abstinence. According to unrebutted record evidence, programs that teach abstinence to the exclusion of all other approaches are ineffective in delaying sexual initiation and reducing adolescent pregnancy, at least as a general matter.”
The court went on to say “an educational initiative that counsels teens on how to avoid pregnancy without discussing the realities of unprotected intercourse and its alternatives would seem to defy social reality, common sense, and scientific evidence alike. Yet HHS seeks to impose these and other unexplained criteria on all TPP grantees moving forward. As such, HHS’s new TPP policy is likely arbitrary and capricious.”
The court also noted that HHS had “(remarkably) reference[d] public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI generated citations.”
The plaintiffs — Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Hennepin County, Minnesota, and King County, Washington — sued after the administration issued new funding criteria and then canceled the vast majority of active TPPP awards just 72 hours later. Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group represent SIECUS, Hennepin County, and King County. Planned Parenthood Federation of America represents Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP represents all Plaintiffs.
“Every person deserves access to the information they need to make informed decisions about their lives, bodies, and futures—including America’s youth,” said Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States. “Today’s decision reaffirms the value of trusted, evidence-based education programs that help youth make informed choices and plan for their futures. Attacks on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program not only put young people at risk, they also risk increasing costs for taxpayers. No one benefits from these politically motivated attacks. It’s time for them to end.”
“Today’s decision sends a clear message that the Trump-Vance Administration cannot recklessly replace the proven, bipartisan Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program with an ideologically driven alternative that harms young people,” said Callie Simon, Executive Director of SIECUS. “While we are encouraged that the court has halted implementation of the new harmful policy, the impacts of terminating existing grants remain. Communities across the country are still without the evidence-based programs they relied on, and we will continue fighting to ensure young people have access to the sex education they deserve.”
“We sued the Trump administration because they were attempting to eliminate funding for science-based sex education in favor of political ideology,” said King County Executive Girmay Zahilay. “King County has some of the lowest unintended pregnancy rates among young people in the country. This is in part because we’re a national leader in providing evidence-based sexual health education and we plan to stay that way. This is a victory for our young people and communities, and we will continue to stand up against politically motivated attacks on proven public health programs.”
“This federal action threatened our ability to complete a study on a new science-based, community-informed sex education curriculum specifically for young men and boys,” said Dr. Sandra J. Valenciano, Director and Health Officer, Public Health – Seattle & King County. “This ruling gives us hope that we may still be able to get to the finish-line with this study and ultimately empower more young people to build healthy families if, when and how they choose.”
“Today’s ruling is a victory for evidence-based policy and for the rule of law,” said Cormac Early, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group. “Congress decided that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program should be based on proven programs and the scientific testing of new approaches, and the court confirmed today that this administration has no authority to ignore those requirements.”
“This ruling is a positive step for young people across the country to be able to receive honest, medically accurate information to empower their health and their futures – not politically motivated messages,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “The court recognized what we’ve argued: this administration cannot override Congress’s clear demand that this program be guided by evidence, not ideology. We will continue fighting to make sure that directive is honored and look forward to the next steps in the case.”
“We are proud to stand with our clients and co-counsel to ensure programs like TPPP continue serving communities with evidence-based education and services,” said Jeannie Rhee, Managing Partner of Dunn Isaacson Rhee.
The court’s order blocks the administration’s new policy while the litigation proceeds.
Read today’s court opinion here.