Seven families with transgender or nonbinary children have initiated a legal action regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order that aims to terminate federal support for gender-affirming healthcare for individuals under the age of 19.
PFLAG, a national organization advocating for families of LGBTQ+ individuals, and GLMA, a medical professionals’ association, are also involved as plaintiffs in this case, which has been lodged in a federal court in Baltimore.
This lawsuit comes just a week after Trump enacted an order instructing the federal government to cease funding for medical care related to gender transition under federal health insurance programs, including Medicaid and TRICARE.
Kristen Chapman, whose family is part of the lawsuit, explained that they relocated from Tennessee to Richmond, Virginia, in 2023 due to a prohibitive law regarding gender-affirming care in their previous state.
Her 17-year-old daughter, Willow, had an initial appointment scheduled with a new provider in Virginia who accepted Medicaid. However, on the eve of the appointment, after Trump’s order was signed, the hospital informed them that it could no longer provide the necessary care.
“I had hoped Virginia would provide a safe environment for my daughter and me,” Kristen Chapman expressed in a statement. “Instead, I am filled with heartbreak, exhaustion, and fear.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal are representing the families and are seeking a judicial stay on the federal order. In a court filing submitted on Tuesday, they argued that Trump’s executive actions are both “unlawful and unconstitutional” as they propose withholding federal funds that Congress had previously authorized.
The legal challenge further contends that the order violates parental rights.
Similar to other legal responses against restrictions on gender-affirming care, they claim the policy discriminates by allowing federal funds for identical treatments that are not related to gender transition.
In the wake of the order, some healthcare providers have halted coverage while they assess the ramifications. New York Attorney General Letitia James, known for her legal battles against Trump, warned hospitals on Monday that discontinuing gender-affirming care for minors would be a violation of their legal obligations.
Trump’s stance on transgender issues marks a stark contrast to the Biden administration’s approach, which sought to broaden civil rights protections for transgender individuals.
In his order regarding gender-affirming care, Trump used provocative language, stating that “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex.”
Alex Sheldon, the executive director of GLMA, highlighted that there are established medical practices for treating transgender youth and emphasized, “An extreme political agenda is attempting to override that expertise, endangering both young individuals and their healthcare providers. We believe that the law, science, and history are on our side.”
Beyond the healthcare directive, Trump has also introduced measures that restrict the definition of sex to a binary, potentially hinder transgender individuals from serving in the military, and establish new regulations on educational content regarding gender.
Several legal challenges have already been initiated concerning the military directive and a proposal to transfer transgender women in federal prisons to men’s facilities, with more lawsuits anticipated similar to past challenges against various Trump policies.
Research indicates that less than 1 in 1,000 adolescents receive gender-affirming care, which may include puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and surgeries, though the latter is uncommon among children.
While transgender individuals have gained visibility and some acceptance, there has also been significant backlash. At least 26 states have enacted laws that restrict or prohibit access to this care for minors.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last year regarding the constitutionality of Tennessee’s ban on this form of care but has yet to deliver a ruling on the matter.
