Donald Trump’s ban on gender-affirming care blocked by federal judge

Plans by U.S.A. President Donald Trump to withdraw federal funding from medical institutions providing gender-affirming care will continue to be halted after a federal judge ruled for a second time that Trump did not have the executive authority to make such an order, according to ‘LGBTQ Nation’.

U.S.A. District Court Judge Lauren J. King, appointed by President Joe Biden, initially implemented a 14-day suspension on Trump’s directive, which intended to cease federal funding for research and educational grants to medical schools and hospitals offering gender-affirming care to individuals under 19.

Judge King first issued the suspension after the attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota filed a motion to sue the Trump Administration. They argued that Trump’s executive order limiting gender-affirming care was an unconstitutional breach of a state's right to self-governance. Colorado subsequently joined the lawsuit, increasing the number of plaintiff states to four.

The judge's order came into effect on February 14 and was originally set to expire by February 28. However, Judge King arranged an injunction hearing for the expiration date and conducted arguments on extending the block. She ruled in favour of a preliminary injunction, halting the order's enforcement in the four involved states.

During the hearing, the states contended that Trump’s order, by attempting to regulate medical care for state residents, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment’s states’ rights. They further argued that withholding Congressionally appropriated funding also breached the Constitution's separation of powers.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) defended the order, claiming it directed agencies to operate “consistent with applicable law,” negating any claims of unconstitutionality. The DOJ also argued that the Equal Protection Clause, mandating equal treatment by the law, didn’t apply since the order was about “safeguarding children from potentially dangerous, ineffective, and unproven treatments.”

Gender-affirming medical care treatments have been used safely on trans and cisgender children for decades. Major medical associations support gender-affirming care as safe, essential, and effective for the well-being of trans people.

Judge King, however, questioned DOJ attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal about Trump’s order’s terminology, especially in defining gender dysphoria. After extensive questioning, Andrapalliyal conceded that gender dysphoria is a recognised condition, and King confirmed that Andrapalliyal had “no reason to dispute the scientific legitimacy of this diagnosis.”

Washington Assistant Attorney General William McGinty emphasised the issue's critical nature, stating, “The president’s disregard for the Constitution is obvious and intentional. But once again, states and the courts have stepped up to affirm the rule of law and the values that hold us together as a nation.”

Furthermore, Judge King noted that the order’s use of negative language, such as “maiming,” “sterilizing,” and “mutilation,” contradicts what is typical for gender-affirming care in the United States.

Undermining the Administration’s case further, King highlighted that the order was not restricted to children or irreversible treatments and did not address medical interventions for cisgender children.

She wrote, “In fact, its inadequate ‘means-end fit’ would prevent federally funded medical providers from providing necessary medical treatments to transgender youth that are completely unrelated to gender identity. For example, a cisgender teen could obtain puberty blockers from such a provider as a component of cancer treatment, but a transgender teen with the same cancer care plan could not.”

Judge King concluded that Trump’s order was intended to restrict rights and protections for trans individuals, leading to her decision to impose the injunction.

The only segment not blocked from the order was the provision against female genital mutilation. This practice is already illegal in the four plaintiff states, and there is no evidence of plans to perform such procedures.

King’s ruling marks the second occasion two separate federal judges have issued injunctions against Trump’s order on gender-affirming care. The first injunction by U.SA.. District Judge Brendan Hurson, also appointed by President Joe Biden, declared that Trump issued his ban without legal authority, rendering his orders unconstitutional discrimination. Hurson’s ruling halted Trump’s order nationwide.

Judge King’s injunction will remain until the case is resolved. To discontinue her injunction, the DOJ would need to appeal to the 9th U.S.A. Circuit Court of Appeals. Given that the Circuit Court justices are predominantly Democrats, an appeal seems unlikely until a resolution is achieved.