Washington — A federal judge in Maryland agreed Thursday to temporarily halt President Trump’s executive action that restricts access to gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19, according to the groups challenging the move, delivering a setback to the Trump administration efforts targeting what it calls “gender ideology” while the legal proceedings move forward.
The ACLU, which is representing a group of transgender young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria and LGBTQ advocacy groups, said U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson issued a temporary restraining order from the bench following a hearing on their bid to temporarily block enforcement of the restrictions.
The challengers have argued that the Trump administration’s actions violate the Constitution and discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status. The ALCU said Hurson’s order prevents federal agencies from conditioning or withholding funds based on the fact that a medical provider offers gender-affirming care to a young patient.
Mr. Trump’s executive action requires federal agencies to ensure medical institutions that receive federal research or education grants end the so-called “chemical and surgical mutilation of children,” defined as those under the age of 19. Medical treatments covered by the order include puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical procedures.
“It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures,” the order states.
Mr. Trump’s measure also calls for federally run insurance programs like TRICARE, the Defense Department’s health care program, and Medicaid to exclude gender-affirming care for minors from coverage.
The measure came on the heels of other executive action taken by the president on his first day back in office that prohibits the use of federal funds to “promote gender ideology” and declares U.S. policy as recognizing only “two sexes, male and female.”
The young people who are part of the lawsuit include two 12-year-olds who identify as transgender, and five transgender teenagers. All were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, according to court filings. Joining them in the case are the organizations PFLAG, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ people, and the American Association of Physicians for Human Rights.
In their bid for the court to halt Mr. Trump’s action, the challengers noted that hospitals around the country have abruptly halted medical care for transgender young people. In the case of one of the plaintiffs, identified in court papers as 14-year-old Gabe Goe, he and his parents were told that Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., would no longer issue new prescriptions or process refills for treatments to address his gender dysphoria.
“The orders gravely threaten transgender people in the United States by pitting the health and wellbeing of that vulnerable minority population against the health and wellbeing of countless others and millions of dollars in federal funding,” the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing.
In arguing that the president’s orders are unlawful and unconstitutional, the plaintiffs said Mr. Trump does not have the power to unilaterally withhold funds that have been authorized by Congress and signed into law.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, said the president has the authority to direct agencies to implement his agenda.
“This well-established authority dooms plaintiffs’ likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the president exceeded his presidential authority in issuing the EOs,” Justice Department lawyers wrote in a filing. “Plaintiffs also are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional and statutory discrimination claims: the EOs do not discriminate based on sex or any other protected class, and they bear a substantial relationship to important governmental objectives regarding the protection of children and adolescents from potentially dangerous and ineffective treatments such that they satisfy any possible standard of constitutional scrutiny anyway.”
