A federal judge has temporarily blocked an effort to cut federal support for transgender medical care.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Lauren King, based in Seattle, issued a temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit filed by three states and three doctors. The order prevents the enforcement of key sections of a recent executive order aimed at restricting gender-affirming care.
Executive Order 14187, titled “Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” seeks to prohibit federal funding for institutions that provide pediatric gender transition services or any form of gender-affirming care for individuals under 19. The lawsuit, filed by Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and three professors from the University of Washington School of Medicine, challenges this restriction.
The plaintiffs argue that withholding funds from state-run medical institutions that continue to serve transgender youth is unconstitutional. According to their complaint, this action exceeds executive authority by infringing on Congress’s control over federal spending and violating the separation of powers.
Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that withdrawing previously allocated federal funds would have far-reaching consequences, negatively affecting medical services beyond transgender healthcare. The loss of funding, estimated at over one billion dollars in the three states alone, could disrupt research and treatment for various conditions, including cancer, AIDS, diabetes, substance use disorders, mental health conditions, autism, aging, cardiovascular diseases, and maternal health.
After a court hearing, King issued an order barring 11 federal agencies and their leaders, along with their officers, employees, and others working with them, from enforcing the defunding provisions of the executive order.
The court also blocked a provision related to law enforcement, which sought to use a federal law against female genital mutilation to justify criminal action against providers of gender-affirming care. While this law primarily applies outside the Americas, the executive order interprets it in a way that could be used to target medical professionals offering transgender care.
The plaintiffs argue that the administration is attempting to falsely equate gender-affirming treatments with genital mutilation. The order’s language threatens criminal prosecution, despite the fact that transgender minors do not undergo genital surgery. Instead, the executive order redefines puberty blockers and hormone therapy as “chemical mutilation.”
The temporary restraining order explicitly prevents the administration from enforcing this redefinition of federal law. The court’s ruling states that officials cannot reinterpret the federal ban on female genital mutilation to include gender-affirming treatments.
The lawsuit criticizes the administration’s broader effort to erase transgender identities by categorizing essential medical treatments as criminal acts. The executive order’s attempt to classify non-surgical treatments as “mutilation” is described as baseless. The legal filing emphasizes that the federal statute cited in the order has no relevance to gender-affirming care and was invoked solely to intimidate healthcare providers.
The court order remains in effect until February 28 unless extended. The judge is expected to provide a more detailed explanation of the ruling in a forthcoming opinion.
One footnote in the ruling clarifies that, for the purposes of this temporary restraining order, President Trump himself is not included among the enjoined defendants.
