SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge in Seattle ruled late Friday that President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw federal funding from institutions that provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth will be stalled for the foreseeable future.
U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King previously issued a two-week restraining order after the Democratic attorneys general of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota sued the Trump administration; Colorado has since joined the case.
King’s temporary order expired on Friday, and she heard arguments that day before issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the majority of Trump’s plan until a final decision on the merits of the case.
The judge determined that the states lacked standing on one issue: the order’s protections against female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is already illegal in the four states involved in the lawsuit, and the judge stated that the record “is bereft of any evidence” that the plaintiffs intend to perform such procedures.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown applauded the ruling.
“The president’s disregard for the Constitution is obvious and intentional,” he said in a statement. “But once again, states and the courts have stepped up to affirm the rule of law and the values that hold us together as a nation.”
An email was sent to the White House, requesting comment.
The case involves two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
One, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” advocates for removing federal funding from programs that “promote gender ideology.”
The other, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” calls on the federal government to cut off research and educational grants to institutions, such as medical schools and hospitals, that provide gender-affirming care to children under the age of 19. Following the order, several hospitals across the country stopped providing care, such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments.
Medicaid programs in some states cover gender-affirming care, and Trump’s “Protecting Children” order suggests that practice may end. It also raises the possibility that medical professionals could face criminal charges for providing gender-affirming care under a law that prohibits medically unnecessary genital mutilation of underage females — a notion that the states suing Trump find repugnant and legally untenable.
Young people who persistently identify as a gender other than their assigned sex at birth — a condition known as gender dysphoria — are far more likely to suffer from severe depression and commit suicide if they do not receive treatment, which may include an evaluation by a team of medical professionals; a social transition, such as changing a hairstyle or pronouns; and, eventually, puberty blockers or hormones. Surgery is extremely uncommon for minors.
In her Friday ruling, the judge stated that the order is not limited to children or irreversible treatments, and that it does not apply to medical interventions performed on cisgender children.
“In fact, its inadequate ‘means-end fit’ would prevent federally funded medical providers from providing necessary medical treatments to transgender youth that are completely unrelated to gender identity,” they wrote. “For example, a cisgender teen could obtain puberty blockers from such a provider as a component of cancer treatment, but a transgender teen with the same cancer care plan could not.”
Washington Assistant Attorney General William McGinty emphasized the importance of the issue during his arguments on Friday.
“There are going to be young people who are going to take their lives if they can no longer receive this care,” he informed me.
The executive order employs derogatory language — words like “maiming,” “sterilizing,” and “mutilation” — that contradicts what is common in gender-affirming care in the United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all strongly support this type of care.
King, the Seattle judge, questioned Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal in court about the significance and impact of Trump’s executive orders.
“What is gender dysphoria?” she inquired.
“Your honor, I am not a medical provider,” Andrapalliyal explained.
“It’s a thing, correct?” King asked. “It’s a medically recognizable diagnosis?”
“I don’t have an official position on that,” Andrapalliyal stated.
The judge persisted, claiming she was “looking for a legitimate government interest” that would justify Trump’s orders.
The four Democratic attorneys general suing in Seattle claimed that the orders violated equal rights protections, the separation of powers, and the right of states to regulate issues not delegated to the federal government.
In court filings, the Trump administration disputed these claims. “The President’s authority to direct subordinate agencies to implement his agenda, subject to those agencies’ own statutory authorities, is well established,” attorneys at the Justice Department wrote.
In addition to the orders on health care access and defining the sexes as unchangeable, Trump has signed orders that open the door to banning transgender people from military service, establishing new rules for how schools can teach about gender, and prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.
Numerous legal challenges have been filed.
