California is waging two high-stakes battles against the federal government, both aimed at protecting its most vulnerable residents. In one case, the state is challenging Washington’s decision to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid reimbursements, a move that forced the closure of multiple clinics across Northern California. In another, it is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over demands for sweeping personal data on millions of residents who rely on CalFresh, the state’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
These lawsuits are not isolated skirmishes. They are flashpoints in a broader legal and cultural war where federal policy is deployed to weaken safety nets and restrict rights. Health care access and food security—two of the most fundamental lifelines for low-income Americans—are being reshaped through law, regulation and fiscal leverage.
California has chosen litigation as its weapon. By taking the federal government to court, state leaders are using constitutional arguments and statutory protections to shield reproductive health care and food assistance programs from being gutted.
The federal government, in turn, is leveraging bureaucracy to chip away at both. The fight is about far more than individual lawsuits—it is about whether law will safeguard or strip away the core supports millions depend on.
Planned Parenthood Under Siege in California
Planned Parenthood in Northern California has been gutted. Five clinics—South San Francisco, San Mateo, Gilroy, Santa Cruz and Madera—closed their doors after the Trump administration’s funding cuts. Together, they served more than 22,000 patients in a single year, most of them low-income.
The closures stripped away critical services. Patients lost access not only to abortion care but also to family medicine, behavioral health, prenatal care, contraception and testing for sexually transmitted infections. For many communities, Planned Parenthood wasn’t just a reproductive health provider; it was their only source of primary care. When those clinics vanished, so did a lifeline.
The fallout spread quickly. Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, the nation’s largest affiliate, laid off more than 60 employees at the shuttered clinics. Across the system, the number of displaced staff reached 120. Each layoff deepened the disruption. Fewer providers meant longer wait times and fewer appointment slots for patients redirected to surviving clinics. Families who once relied on a nearby office were forced to travel farther or forgo care altogether.
A Forced Retreat
What makes the closures more striking is that they came even after a federal judge ordered Medicaid reimbursements to continue. The ruling should have offered relief, but it came too late.
Planned Parenthood had already absorbed millions in losses and concluded that keeping the doors open was unsustainable. The decision underscored the fragility of health care networks built on unpredictable federal funding.
The closures also exposed the limits of litigation as a shield. A favorable ruling could not undo the financial damage or restore shuttered facilities. In practice, once the clinics closed, patients lost access for good. California was left with fewer points of care, and Planned Parenthood was forced to retreat to a leaner, less comprehensive model.
California’s Lawsuit to Restore Planned Parenthood Funding
California responded to the closures with a lawsuit designed to claw back funding and test the limits of federal authority. Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by 22 other states and the District of Columbia, filed suit in federal court challenging the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The measure, signed earlier this summer, cut off Medicaid reimbursements to large nonprofit health providers that primarily offer abortion services. The law was written with Planned Parenthood in mind, and California is treating it as an unconstitutional strike at both health care and speech.
The complaint argues the statute is fatally vague. Under the Medicaid Act, states are entitled to clear notice of funding restrictions before they take effect. Here, the language is so sweeping and undefined that states are left guessing about compliance. That uncertainty, California contends, violates the Constitution’s due process protections and undermines the federal-state partnership that Medicaid was built on.
First Amendment Claims
The lawsuit also raises direct First Amendment claims. By targeting Planned Parenthood for its role in advocating abortion access, the law punishes speech and association.
California and its allies argue the measure is not a neutral spending condition but a retaliatory strike against an organization for engaging in constitutionally protected advocacy. In their view, Congress used fiscal power to silence a political opponent.
The financial stakes are enormous. Planned Parenthood affiliates in California stand to lose roughly $300 million annually in Medicaid reimbursements. Nearly 80% of their patients rely on Medi-Cal, and the funding cut threatens to unravel a statewide network of more than 100 clinics. The closures already underway are the clearest evidence of the damage.
Court rulings so far have been mixed. A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a temporary injunction blocking parts of the law, allowing some affiliates to resume billing Medicaid. That relief applied nationwide, only for Planned Parenthood to confirm that five California sites would remain permanently closed.
Human Cost of Defunding and Clinic Closures
San Mateo County illustrates the human cost of defunding with brutal clarity.
Two clinics in the county—South San Francisco and San Mateo—closed overnight, leaving only one facility in Redwood City to absorb thousands of displaced patients.
For residents who relied on their neighborhood clinic for contraception, prenatal care, or cancer screenings, the nearest alternative is now miles away.
Travel time adds another barrier, and for many, that means delaying or skipping care altogether.
Adding Insult to Injury
Planned Parenthood has tried to soften the blow by expanding telehealth and exploring business models that reduce reliance on federal reimbursements.
While digital access provides some relief, it cannot replace in-person procedures or ongoing primary care. And for low-income patients without reliable internet or transportation, the digital shift introduces new inequities rather than solving old ones. These burdens fall hardest on the populations with the fewest resources. In many parts of Northern California, Planned Parenthood was the only provider offering affordable primary and reproductive care.
Its retreat from local communities isn’t simply a reduction in options—it’s the elimination of care altogether.
The state’s poorest residents are left navigating longer waitlists, traveling farther distances or going without treatment. The political maneuvering in Washington translates directly into worsening health outcomes for families who can least afford the loss.
California’s SNAP Lawsuit Against USDA
The fight over food security has become just as contentious as the battle over reproductive care. In July, the USDA ordered states to turn over detailed personal data on every SNAP recipient.
The directive required names, addresses and other identifying information for millions of Americans, with the warning that noncompliance could cost states their federal funding. The deadline was July 30.
California refused to comply. Instead, Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by 18 other states and the District of Columbia, filed suit in the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit argues the USDA’s demand is unlawful on multiple grounds. It violates existing privacy laws designed to protect recipients’ information. It infringes on the 10th Amendment by coercing states into enforcing a federal mandate that goes beyond the agency’s authority. And it fails the Administrative Procedure Act’s test by being arbitrary and capricious.
Using Food Aid as a Weapon
The scale of the program magnifies the stakes. California receives $1.3 billion each year to help administer roughly $12 billion in CalFresh benefits to more than five million residents. That’s 13 percent of the state’s population.
Any disruption would jeopardize access to food for millions of families, many of whom already live at the edge of poverty. For these households, losing benefits because of a political standoff is a direct threat to their ability to eat.
California has now sued the Trump administration 35 times in just 27 weeks. Each lawsuit reflects a pattern: the state stepping into court whenever Washington tries to leverage federal programs to pursue ideological goals.
The SNAP data case fits the mold. It is not only about protecting privacy or preserving state autonomy. It is about stopping the federal government from using food aid as a weapon in the same way it used Medicaid to target reproductive health care.
A Pattern of Targeting the Vulnerable
Taken together, the Planned Parenthood and SNAP cases expose a deliberate federal strategy: cut off resources at the points where Americans are most dependent. By weaponizing funding streams, Washington has sought to dismantle programs that millions of low-income families rely on to survive.
The federal narrative is clear. In defending the Planned Parenthood cuts, officials argued that the organization has chosen political advocacy over patient care. In the SNAP fight, they framed their demand for personal data as an accountability measure, casting doubt on whether states administer the program responsibly. Both claims carry the same subtext: these safety nets cannot be trusted without federal intervention, and those who run them should be punished for their perceived politics.
California has countered with a starkly different argument. To state leaders, both policies are designed not to improve accountability but to punish and control.
Defunding clinics strips reproductive health care from poor communities. Forcing disclosure of sensitive data threatens families already struggling to put food on the table. In each case, constitutional rights—free speech, privacy and state sovereignty—are collateral damage.
California on the Frontline
These lawsuits also raise profound questions about federalism. California is using the courts as a shield, asserting that states can and must resist when Washington oversteps.
Culturally, the cases illustrate how abortion access and food security have become proxies in the larger ideological war. The battles are not only about clinics and benefits—they are about which vision of America prevails: one where safety nets exist to protect the vulnerable, or one where those lifelines are reshaped to fit partisan agendas.
The trajectory is likely to extend to the Supreme Court. Just as prior rulings have shaped the boundaries of reproductive rights and Medicaid, these cases could set new precedent on both health care and food assistance.
The stakes are national, but California is defining the frontline. Whether it wins outright, the state is forcing courts to confront the question: will law serve as a tool to protect the vulnerable, or as a weapon to undermine and control them?
