Staff Reports
The D.C. federal court just put a stop sign in front of HHS’s new teen pregnancy policy. U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued a preliminary injunction blocking the department from using its 2026 Policy and FY 2026 Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) to steer Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) grants toward a blanket abstinence-only approach and the vague idea of “body literacy.” More striking than the pause was the judge’s finding that HHS cited studies that “appear either not to exist” — language he called “a hallmark of AI‑generated citations.”
What the court actually did
The injunction prevents HHS from implementing its 2026 Policy through the FY 2026 NOFOs while the lawsuit moves forward. It did not automatically restore the roughly 53 terminated grants or the $66–67 million that had already been cut, so communities are still feeling the pain even as the agency’s new rules are frozen. The case was brought by a coalition including county health departments and reproductive‑health groups; the court found the plaintiffs likely to win on their claim that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge set a token $1.00 injunction bond, signaling the relief should stand while the legal fight proceeds.
AI‑style citations: not a harmless typo
Judge Cooper’s criticism of the administrative record is the big takeaway. He wrote: “On the topic of body literacy, the notices (remarkably) reference 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.” That is not just a scholarly faux pas. Courts expect federal agencies to put credible evidence in the record when they change policy. When citations look fabricated or mismatched, the agency’s whole rulemaking collapses into guesswork and opinion — exactly what the arbitrary‑and‑capricious test forbids.
Policy substance: abstinence, body literacy, and the law
The policy HHS tried to impose favored abstinence‑oriented programs and pushed “body literacy” as a required element for Tier 1 replication grants. The problem, as the judge noted, is that Tier 1 awards must replicate programs proven effective by rigorous evaluation — and there simply isn’t a tested national body‑literacy curriculum to replicate. Cooper also acknowledged abstinence education can be appropriate for some groups, but he rejected the idea that HHS could impose an across‑the‑board abstinence mandate without a real explanation and real studies to back it up. That legal distinction sank the NOFOs more than any ideological jab.
Consequences for HHS and what comes next
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s department now faces a credibility problem of its own making. Sloppy citations and a hurried policy roll‑out handed opponents an easy win in court and left kids’ programs in limbo. HHS can appeal, rewrite the NOFOs with proper evidence, or try to defend the record — none of which will look good if the pattern of dodgy citations continues. Conservatives who want sensible, evidence‑based abstinence programs should be the first to insist that the government stop treating research like a tweet and start treating it like a court‑worthy record. If HHS wants to change how taxpayers’ money is used, it needs real studies, careful rulemaking, and actual accountability — not AI footnotes and political theater.
