SEATTLE — On Friday, a second federal judge issued a pause on President Donald Trump’s executive order that ends federal support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth under 19 years old.
U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King granted a temporary restraining order following a lawsuit filed against the Trump administration last week by the Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota. The lawsuit, which includes three doctors as plaintiffs, was registered in the Western District of Washington.
This ruling came just a day after another federal judge in Baltimore issued a similar temporary block against the executive order in a case brought by families with transgender and nonbinary children. Judge Brendan Hurson’s restraining order is set to last 14 days but has the possibility of extension, effectively putting Trump’s directive on hold as the legal proceedings unfold. Both judges were appointed by former President Joe Biden.
Last month, Trump signed an executive order that stops federal funding for organizations providing gender-affirming care, instructing federally-managed insurance programs, such as Medicaid and TRICARE, to exclude related coverage. The order also encourages the Department of Justice to engage in litigation and legislative efforts against such care.
In certain states, Medicaid programs currently offer coverage for gender-affirming services. However, Trump’s executive order raises concerns that such practices may be discontinued, focusing on hospitals and educational institutions that receive federal funding for these services.
The complaint submitted in Seattle argues that the executive order violates equal rights protections, disregards the separation of powers, and infringes on state authority to regulate matters not explicitly assigned to the federal government.
The Trump administration has challenged these accusations in court filings, asserting that the President has the power to instruct subordinate agencies about implementing his policies in accordance with their statutory authorities, as noted by Justice Department attorneys.
A significant number of people gathered at the federal courthouse to attend Friday’s hearing. Outside, many showcased signs reading “Protect Trans Kids” and waved Pride flags bearing messages of support like, “You are loved.”
Following the ruling, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown spoke about the impact of the unconstitutional order, emphasizing the courage of over 100 individuals who shared their personal experiences. He noted that the temporary restraining order is merely an initial step in an extended battle, expressing hope that it will reassure healthcare providers that they can continue offering gender-affirming care to their patients.
Third-year medical student Natalie Koconis, who was among a group of medical professionals present at the courthouse, expressed feelings of relief regarding the ruling. Koconis explained that Trump’s executive order adversely affected their ability to treat transgender youth, reinforcing their mission to ensure everyone receives the care they need and deserve.
In addition to the measures concerning healthcare accessibility and the assertion of unchangeable sex definitions, Trump has enacted other orders, including potential bans on transgender individuals serving in the military, restrictions on how gender can be taught in schools, and plans to block transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports.
There are already legal challenges underway regarding the military directives, the movement of transgender women in federal prisons to men’s facilities, and the limitation of sex recognition solely to one’s assigned gender at birth—leading to the suspension of changing gender markers on passports.
Further lawsuits are anticipated, mirroring the numerous challenges to various Trump policies. Although transgender individuals have gained some acceptance in societal contexts, there has been a strong backlash, with at least 26 states passing laws to limit or prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. Although the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding Tennessee’s ban on this care last year, a decision has yet to be rendered on its constitutionality.
