DOJ should keep Texas’ Planned Parenthood Medicaid case moving
A federal motion would keep Texas’ Medicaid suit moving as Nathan Johnson reviews the case; a court has already found three affiliates must return overpayments.
The Justice Department should step into this case and keep it moving: Reuters reports that the lawsuit accuses Planned Parenthood of continuing to bill Texas and Louisiana Medicaid after the states’ initial termination decisions and failing to repay payments once those terminations took effect. The Epoch Times’ Nov. 8 post says: “JUST IN: The DOJ signaled intent to join a Texas lawsuit accusing Planned Parenthood of Medicaid fraud, according to a Nov. 6 court filing.” A joint status report filed Nov. 6 in federal court in Amarillo states: “The United States is planning to file a motion to intervene by November 13, 2026.” The report adds that the United States “does not intend to file a separate complaint in intervention.”1
Washington once refused this fight: under President Joe Biden, the Justice Department declined in 2021 to join the case2. The case began in 2021, when an anonymous whistleblower known as Alex Doe sued under the federal False Claims Act on behalf of the United States, Texas and Louisiana; GSM Global News reports that the lawsuit alleges Planned Parenthood affiliates continued to bill and collect payments from Texas and Louisiana Medicaid after the states terminated their eligibility and failed to repay the money. The Texas Tribune reports that Texas joined the case in 2022 over about $10 million in Medicaid payments and is seeking more than $1.8 billion in reimbursement, penalties and fees. Nathan Johnson, elected Texas attorney general, said: “We are reviewing this action closely, including what it means for Texans and what the law allows. When I take office as Attorney General, I will take appropriate action in the interests of my state.” Now, they are going to use the Department of Justice to try again. The Texas Tribune reports that Planned Parenthood senior vice president Susan Baker Manning said, “The Trump administration has spent two years trying to shut down Planned Parenthood through legislative, administrative, and legal attacks.” The filing signals that the Justice Department plans to intervene in the case. Money set aside for poor families' health care belongs with the program that paid it, not in the accounts of an abortion business.
“We are reviewing this action closely, including what it means for Texans and what the law allows.”
A court found three affiliates owe repayments
The federal government plans to seek permission to intervene in a case that has already produced a ruling against Planned Parenthood. In October 2023 the court entered partial summary judgment, finding that three Texas affiliates have a legal obligation to return overpayments they received. The case then sat frozen for more than two years while the national organization appealed. The full Fifth Circuit dismissed that appeal on Aug. 12, 2026, and the court lifted the stay on Oct. 61. A court has already ruled that three affiliates owe money back, and the trial will decide the rest.
Johnson’s review leaves the case in transition
Defending that ruling now falls to a new attorney general. Texas voters chose Democrat Nathan Johnson as attorney general days before the federal filing, and Ken Paxton lost his bid for the U.S. Senate3. Paxton, a Republican, championed the suit and is leaving office2. Johnson has said he will review Paxton's lawsuits, including the Planned Parenthood case. The Texas Tribune reports that Johnson has yet to say definitively how he would handle the case or the federal intervention. He has already said he will not sue out-of-state doctors who mail abortion pills into Texas4. With the United States in the case, a five-year fight over Medicaid dollars no longer depends on one incoming officeholder's review.
The repayment ruling answers its defense
The Texas Tribune reports that Planned Parenthood called the suit “meritless” and said it would keep fighting. It says its billing was legal because courts had paused the states' termination decisions3. Manning repeated her earlier criticism of DOJ’s intervention.”
The court should keep the April trial date
The question belongs in a courtroom, and on schedule. The parties jointly propose a seven-day trial beginning April 13, 2027, before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk3. The defendants have already signaled a slowdown: the status report says they reserve the right to oppose intervention, seek more discovery and ask for deadline extensions1. The court should grant the Justice Department's motion and refuse any request that pushes back the date. Johnson should keep Texas in the case alongside the federal government. The trial should open on April 13, and every dollar the affiliates owe should go back to the Medicaid program that serves Texas families.
Sources
FAMILY BRIEF The news and network for the American family.
