BALTIMORE — On Thursday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against President Donald Trump’s recent executive order that sought to limit gender-affirming health care for transgender individuals under the age of 19.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by families with transgender or nonbinary children who claimed their medical care had already been adversely affected. This legal challenge is one of several ongoing lawsuits contesting various executive actions taken by Trump as he attempts to undo previous policies set by former President Joe Biden.
Judge Brendan Hurson, appointed by Biden, approved the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order after conducting a hearing in a federal court in Baltimore. This order, which is valid for 14 days but may be extended, effectively suspends Trump’s directive while the legal proceedings are ongoing.
Consequently, medical facilities will not risk losing federal funding for providing gender-affirming care services during this period. Furthermore, the restraining order is applicable nationwide, affecting institutions across the United States. Legal representatives for the government did not reveal whether they intended to contest the ruling.
Following his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order mandating that federally managed insurance programs exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments. This directive impacts Medicaid—which offers coverage for such care in some states—and TRICARE, the military health system. Additionally, Trump had previously defined gender narrowly as male or female, ordering that federal funds not be allocated to promote any notion of gender ideology.
The lawsuit presented multiple testimonies from families who reported canceled appointments as medical institutions adapted to the new directives, leading some hospitals to pause gender-affirming treatments, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers.
During the Thursday afternoon hearing, Judge Hurson repeatedly urged attorneys from both sides to address the potential risks associated with fully implementing Trump’s orders, which could further limit healthcare access. He directly questioned the claim that Trump’s initiatives aim to safeguard transgender youths.
“The order seems to deny that this population even exists, or deserves to exist,” Hurson stated, emphasizing the already high risks of suicide, poverty, and addiction faced by transgender individuals. He expressed concern that abruptly halting their healthcare could lead to “irreparable harm.”
In defense of Trump, government attorneys argued that the president’s orders were attempts to ensure federal agencies followed lawful procedures aligning with his policy goals, claiming they were not intended to restrict healthcare access. Rather, they framed the orders as decisions on federal funding distribution.
Conversely, the plaintiffs’ legal team argued that the orders are “unlawful and unconstitutional,” as they violate anti-discrimination laws and infringe on parental rights.
Before the hearing, dozens of advocates and transgender individuals gathered outside the courthouse in Baltimore, brandishing signs and waving pride flags accompanied by lively music. Iya Dammons, the executive director of the nonprofit Baltimore Safe Haven, emphasized their commitment: “We will not be erased. We’ve been here before, and we’re not going back.”
As the hearing commenced, community members filled the courtroom, paying close attention to the legal arguments presented. Lee Binder from Trans Maryland reaffirmed the need for solidarity, asserting that some of the most vulnerable members of the transgender community are being exploited politically.
Trump’s stance marks a significant departure from the previous administration, which actively sought to enhance civil rights protections for transgender individuals. His rhetoric against gender-affirming care falsely suggests that medical professionals are harming children under the guise of gender transition.
Leading medical organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics advocate for access to gender-affirming treatments. Young individuals who identify with a gender differing from their assigned sex at birth typically undergo careful evaluations by healthcare professionals, often beginning with social transitions—such as altering pronouns or hairstyle—before considering medical interventions like puberty blockers or hormones, with surgical options being extremely rare for minors.
Similar to recent legal challenges in various states against gender-affirming care bans, this lawsuit contends that the policy is discriminatory because federal funds cover equivalent treatments not related to gender transition. It also argues that Trump is overstepping his authority by attempting to restrict federal funds that Congress has already sanctioned.
The ruling was lauded by plaintiffs and advocates as a significant victory for transgender youth and their families, according to Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, an attorney with Lambda Legal representing the plaintiffs. Gonzalez-Pagan expressed hope that hospitals that had suspended appointments would begin rescheduling thanks to the temporary restraining order safeguarding their funding.
He remarked, “I hope this brings joy and a sense of security to these families.” Looking ahead, he added, “The fight is far from over.”
Joshua Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, echoed the sentiment in a statement following the hearing, highlighting that the president’s unlawful order has incited fear among transgender youths and confusion among their healthcare providers. He expressed optimism that the court’s decision would reaffirm their right to healthcare and constitutional protections.
