Washington — A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked President Trump’s directive aimed at limiting access to gender-affirming care for individuals under 19, marking the second such intervention in just a few days against the president’s attempts to restrict these treatments.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Lauren King was made on Friday as part of a legal challenge initiated a week earlier by a coalition of three states — Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon — alongside three physicians who provide medical care for transgender individuals dealing with gender dysphoria.
Judge King, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, conducted a hearing on Friday regarding the states’ request for a temporary injunction against Mr. Trump’s order restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors. A short entry in the court records confirmed that King had approved a temporary restraining order and would be issuing a formal written order.
This injunction will remain effective while legal proceedings continue.
King’s ruling follows a similar decision made by a federal judge in Maryland, who on Thursday temporarily suspended Mr. Trump’s executive order for 14 days. This ruling was part of a case brought forth by the ACLU on behalf of seven transgender youth and two LGBTQ rights organizations.
The president’s directive, introduced during his first week in office, threatens to cut research and education funding for medical facilities that provide gender-affirming care to young patients. The treatments impacted by this order include puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and various surgical interventions.
The Democrat-led states that filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration argued that the order denies transgender youth essential medical care that can be life-saving. They described it as a “cruel and unfounded assault on transgender youth, their families, and the healthcare providers supporting them.”
“This action represents an official act of bigotry from the president, encouraging agencies to openly discriminate against vulnerable youth based on their transgender identity and sex,” state officials asserted within their legal filing. “Moreover, it constitutes a clear abuse of power, overriding spending and legislative authorities that rightfully belong to Congress and infringing on the historic powers of the States to regulate medical practice, in violation of the Tenth Amendment.”
In contrast, the White House has defended the directive as a measure aimed at safeguarding children from treatments that may pose harmful health risks and for which efficacy evidence is lacking. Lawyers from the Justice Department contended in a court document that the lawsuit is also premature, as no specific grants threatened by the executive order have been cited by federal agencies.
Furthermore, the Justice Department asserted that Article II of the Constitution grants the president the authority to instruct agencies to implement measures in line with his administration’s policies.
“Such an order — inhibiting the Executive Branch’s ability to even initiate a general policy direction — would be a significant encroachment on a distinct branch of government, conflicting with Article II,” they contended in their argument. “The president possesses the constitutional power to guide his subordinates toward achieving a general policy objective, consistent with all relevant laws.”
Recently, half of the states have passed laws that restrict access to gender-affirming care for minors. The Supreme Court is currently examining the constitutionality of one such law from Tennessee, with a decision anticipated by early July in a challenge brought forth by former President Joe Biden’s administration, three families, and a physician.
The Trump administration has reversed the government’s position on this case, affirming that Tennessee’s law does not breach the Constitution, and has urged the Supreme Court to render a decision on the matter.
