Federal Court Blocks Trump's Executive Orders on Gender-Affirming Care
In a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights, a federal court has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's recent executive orders targeting gender-affirming care. The case, PFLAG, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., centered on two key directives: Executive Order 14,168, also known as the "Gender Identity Order," and Executive Order 14,187, the "Healthcare Order."
What Were These Executive Orders?
The Gender Identity Order aimed to prevent federal funds from being used to "promote gender ideology." Critics argued that this vague language could be used to restrict a wide range of programs and services supporting LGBTQ+ individuals.
The Healthcare Order sought to stop institutions receiving federal research or education grants from providing what it termed "chemical and surgical mutilation of children," a clear reference to gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
Why the Court Stepped In
The court had already issued a temporary restraining order against parts of the Executive Orders. In this recent ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs (PFLAG and other organizations) are likely to succeed in their claims that the orders are unconstitutional.
The court emphasized that the Executive Orders placed conditions on federal funding that Congress never authorized. Referencing Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent, including Bostock v. Clayton County, the court also highlighted the likelihood of success for the Plaintiffs' discrimination-related claims.
Furthermore, the court recognized that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the orders were allowed to remain in effect. The balance of equities and the public interest, according to the court, strongly favored a preliminary injunction.
Real-World Impact of the Orders
The orders are already impacting people, for example:
Following the issuance of the orders, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sent notices to grant recipients, suggesting that funds could not be used for activities conflicting with the orders.
Medical institutions across the country began halting gender-affirming care for patients under nineteen.
Specific examples include Children's National Hospital in D.C. (pausing puberty blockers and hormone therapy), VCU Health and Children's Hospital of Richmond (suspending gender-affirming care), and UVA Health (suspending all gender-affirming care for those under nineteen).
Several institutions, like NYU Langone and Boston Children's Hospital, canceled appointments for transgender patients under nineteen.
What This Means
This preliminary injunction is a crucial step in protecting access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The court's decision sends a clear message that the executive branch cannot unilaterally impose restrictions on federal funding that undermine established legal protections and harm vulnerable populations. This case is a significant development for LGBTQ+ rights and the ongoing fight for equal access to healthcare
