Two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at limiting the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals are now facing legal challenges, as lawsuits were filed on Friday.
A coalition of transgender individuals initiated a case in the U.S. District Court located in Boston against an executive order that ceased the ability to modify gender markers on passports, which notably excludes the use of the “X” marker preferred by many nonbinary individuals.
The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that this sudden change in policy last month violated the mandated 60-day notice and comment period and constitutes discrimination based on sex, and in some cases, on transgender status.
The contentious order, signed by Trump on his first day back in office, asserted that the government would only recognize biological sex rather than gender, labeling sex as an immutable characteristic. This stance contradicts the views of reputable organizations like the American Medical Association and other established medical authorities.
On the same day, a coalition of three Democratic states also took action against the Trump administration regarding its directive to eliminate federal funding for gender-affirming care for individuals under the age of 19.
Washington state’s Attorney General, Nick Brown, filed a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Washington, supported by the attorneys general of Oregon and Minnesota as well as three medical professionals.
Their legal complaint asserts that the executive order discriminates against transgender individuals.
Last month, Trump signed an executive order that ordered federally-operated insurance programs, including Medicaid and TRICARE for military families, to exclude any coverage for gender-affirming care. The directive also instructs the Department of Justice to seek legal and legislative avenues to oppose such healthcare provisions.
In several states, Medicaid programs currently provide coverage for gender-affirming care, but the new executive order raises concerns that these services may soon be eliminated, particularly affecting hospitals and educational institutions that rely on federal funding to provide these essential treatments.
“This order poses an immediate threat to young people all across Washington state, as well as to the healthcare providers who offer vital services,” Brown expressed during a news briefing in Seattle.
The complaint letters also argue that the order infringes upon equal rights protections, undermines the principle of separation of powers, and violates the states’ authority to regulate matters not expressly assigned to the federal government.
This development follows a separate lawsuit that was filed earlier in the week by families with transgender or nonbinary children in a Baltimore federal court.
While these legal battles progress, several healthcare providers have temporarily ceased offering gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth, although officials in New York have stated to hospitals that such a halt would breach the law.
Additionally, other executive orders have been signed by Trump that could lead to prohibitions on transgender individuals serving in the military and implementing stringent regulations regarding how educational institutions address gender issues.
On Wednesday, Trump also enacted an executive order that aims to prevent transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports at all levels.
Legal actions have already been initiated regarding the military-related orders and a proposal to relocate transgender women in federal facilities to men’s prisons. Further lawsuits are anticipated, echoing the trend of challenges against various policies enacted during Trump’s administration.
Research indicates that fewer than 1 in 1,000 adolescents have access to gender-affirming healthcare, which encompasses treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and in rare cases, surgical procedures.
While there has been a measure of progress in the visibility and acceptance of transgender individuals, a substantial backlash persists. At least 26 states have enacted laws aimed at restricting or prohibiting access to care for minors undergoing gender transitions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments concerning Tennessee’s restrictions on such care, but a ruling on its constitutionality has yet to be issued.
