The Trump administration has been accused of violating multiple federal court orders related to transgender medical care and should be held in contempt, according to a motion filed recently by a coalition of states. The motion, filed on March 7, 2025, argues that the administration’s actions undermine the authority of courts by circumventing orders blocking anti-transgender policies.
On February 7, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and three medical school doctors sued the government to prevent the implementation of two executive orders that sought to ban federal support for gender-affirming medical care. Colorado quickly joined the lawsuit, becoming the fourth state plaintiff.
On February 14, U.S. District Judge Lauren King, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a temporary restraining order halting the implementation of the anti-transgender policies. Judge King elaborated on her decision on February 16, explaining her reasoning in a memorandum opinion. Then, on February 28, she issued a preliminary injunction, which remains in effect until the case concludes at the district court level or unless the government successfully appeals.
However, the plaintiffs claim that the government has continued to violate both King’s orders and similar injunctions issued by other federal courts in Maryland and Rhode Island. The most recent violations include the termination of funds to hospitals, which the plaintiffs argue directly contradicts court orders. The motion for contempt begins by asserting that, “Defendants believe they have devised a way to skirt this Court’s authority and avoid complying with its injunctions.”
On March 4, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) revoked over $200,000 in grant funding from Seattle Children’s Hospital. On March 6, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a defunding order, threatening to strip funds from at least five hospitals in the four plaintiff states. The agencies involved justified these actions by claiming they would no longer support transgender-related research or medical treatment. Specifically, the NIH told Seattle Children’s Hospital that it was terminating the grant because “Transgender issues” were deemed inconsistent with “biological realities,” and studying transgender health was considered without value.
Initially, the plaintiffs believed the funding cuts were an honest mistake and alerted the administration to the issue. However, a government attorney explained that the NIH terminated the grant based on its own policies and guidelines. As the situation unfolded, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) celebrated the cut on social media, media reports surfaced about the decision, and leaked documents indicated that the cuts were tied to President Trump’s anti-transgender orders.
The HHS cuts, which were even more severe and nationwide in scope, reportedly surprised the four states. The motion also highlights how HHS issued additional notices threatening to revoke up to $370 million in education grants from children’s hospitals across the country, all based on the government’s interpretation of the court orders.
The plaintiffs argue that the government’s actions represent a clear violation of court orders. The motion emphasizes that injunctions are not mere suggestions but binding legal commands that must be obeyed. The plaintiffs contend that the government should not be allowed to circumvent these orders through what they describe as “game-playing.” They request that the court hold the defendants in contempt and grant Washington State its legal fees in connection with the motion.
Moreover, the plaintiffs highlight that both Maryland and Rhode Island courts have blocked the administration from implementing the anti-transgender policies under different guises. This, they argue, reinforces the strength of their claim that the Trump administration’s actions are in direct violation of federal court orders.
In conclusion, the plaintiffs stress the urgency of resolving this issue quickly, arguing that the government’s actions have already caused significant harm to medical researchers and institutions. They call for an expedited resolution to ensure compliance with the court’s orders and to prevent further illegal terminations of medical research grants related to gender-affirming care.
