Another Judge Blocks Trump’s Order Targeting Funding for Transgender Procedures for Youth

A federal judge in Maryland blocked the order in another restraining order on Feb. 13.

File photo of a judge's gavel. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting money that flows to organizations providing transgender procedures to individuals under 19 years of age.

The Feb. 14 temporary restraining order, issued by Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington, came after another issued the day before from a judge in Maryland.

Multiple doctors joined Washington state, Oregon, and Minnesota in suing the Trump administration. In a motion for a temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs focused on two sections of Trump’s Executive Order entitled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”

One of the sections in the order directs the head of each agency “that provides research or education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals” to “immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”

Another directs the attorney general to review Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement of federal law prohibiting female genital mutilation and to “prioritize enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation.”

King’s order enjoined the government from enforcing both sections. It’s set to expire after 14 days unless the court again extends it.

She also specified that the section on female genital mutilation was blocked “to the extent that” it “purports to redefine ‘female genital mutilation’” under federal law “as ‘chemical and surgical mutilation’ as defined in Section 2(c) of [Trump’s order].”

That section defines mutilation as including the use of puberty blockers, the use of sex hormones, and surgical procedures “that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”

In Maryland, Judge Brendan Hurson blocked the section on grant funding, as well as another from Trump’s executive order titled: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Hurson’s order targeted a section that reads: “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

In both cases, the plaintiffs argued that the administration violated the constitution’s separation of powers by attempting to usurp legislative power over appropriating funds. They also argued that the administration was violating a Fifth Amendment guarantee to equal protection by discriminating.

“The Order facially discriminates against transgender and gender-diverse people by stigmatizing, defunding, and purporting to criminalize health care that is lawful, state-regulated, medically appropriate and necessary, and specific to their health needs, while the same care is provided to cisgender people for other purposes,” the lawsuit in Washington read.

The administration told the court in a Feb. 11 filing that the plaintiffs’ “claims run headlong into Article II’s plain authority for the President to use his Executive Authority to direct his subordinates to take appropriate steps in furtherance of policy preferences.”

It added that “[w]hich grants the agency can condition consistent with applicable law as directed by the EO is currently uncertain, and there is no final agency action for the Court to evaluate.”

In Maryland, DOJ similarly argued that the mutilation order was focused on directing agencies to develop plans for revoking funding rather than an outright order to immediately revoke funding. Hurson said the effect of the orders was more direct and referenced an email in which the Health Resources and Services Administration told grant recipients they could not use funds that didn’t align with Trump’s orders. The DOJ said the email had been rescinded while Hurson questioned how someone could rescind an email.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.