FOLLOW US

In a major legal blow to the Trump administration, a Washington federal judge on Friday issued a second temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump’s executive directive seeking to cut off federal funding for gender-affirming healthcare for individuals under 19.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lauren King aligns with legal challenges brought by the attorneys general of Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, who argue that the order exceeds presidential authority and discriminates against transgender youth.

"This order blatantly discriminates against transgender youth," Judge King said in her ruling from the bench.

Legal Battle Over Transgender Healthcare Intensifies

This decision follows a similar ruling a day earlier in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson temporarily blocked the Trump administration from restricting access to gender-affirming medical care. That lawsuit was brought by transgender adolescents, families, and legal advocacy groups, including Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and PFLAG Inc.

Judge Hurson ordered the administration to maintain federal funding for healthcare providers offering transgender care, directly contradicting Trump’s order.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), however, has defended the directive, arguing that Trump acted within his constitutional authority under Article II to direct federal agencies in implementing policy. DOJ attorneys also contended that the executive order does not violate the separation of powers, dismissing the lawsuits as premature since federal agencies had yet to enact the directive.

The Trump administration insists the measure is designed to protect minors, claiming gender-affirming treatments are "potentially dangerous, ineffective, and unproven."

States Push Back Against "Cruel" Executive Order

Trump’s January executive order sought to eliminate federal funding for gender-affirming care, including Medicaid and military health coverage, calling such treatments a “stain on our nation’s history.”

In response, Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and three unnamed doctors filed suit on Feb. 7 in Seattle federal court, seeking an injunction against what they call a blatantly unconstitutional directive. The lawsuit contends that:

• The order discriminates against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
• It oversteps federal authority, infringing on states' 10th Amendment rights to regulate medical practices.
• Trump's claims that gender-affirming care leads to regret and “mutilation” are unfounded and contradicted by medical evidence.
• The directive puts doctors at legal risk for providing essential care to transgender youth.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown denounced Trump’s order as a cruel, politically motivated overreach, arguing that it unjustly strips federal funding from state healthcare institutions, including the University of Washington School of Medicine.

"Congress has already approved this funding, and the president does not have the unilateral authority to undo it," Brown stated.

What Comes Next?

With two federal judges now blocking Trump’s order, the administration faces an uphill legal battle as more challenges are expected. While the DOJ has not yet announced an appeal, the case is likely to be fought in higher courts, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

As legal battles unfold, transgender youth and their families remain in limbo, caught between state protections and federal uncertainty over their right to access essential healthcare.