A federal judge in Washington state has once again blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to strip transgender youth ofmedically necessary care, reinforcing a prior ruling that halted enforcement of the ban nationwide. This is the third time a jurist has stood in the way of the administration's anti-trans action.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
U.S. District Judge Lauren King’s decision extends her earlier injunction on Friday and prevents the federal government from cutting off funding to hospitals and medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care. The ruling follows a similar decision from U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson in Maryland last month, where he found President Donald Trump’s executive orders likely unconstitutional. These repeated legal defeats underscore the administration’s inability to justify its efforts to dismantle transgender health care.
Related:BREAKING: Federal judge blocks Trump’s gender-affirming care ban for minors
Trump’s January 28 executive order, misleadingly titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” blocks federal funding for hospitals and clinics offering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries to transgender people under 19. It also directed federal agencies to rescind policies supporting such treatments and enforce stricter legal measures against providers.
In her ruling, King echoed constitutional concerns raised by Hurson, stating that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by imposing funding restrictions that Congress never authorized. “The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President,” she wrote, adding that the executive order “imposes conditions on federal grants that are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”
King also found that the order violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by treating transgender individuals differently without justification. “This Order denies the very existence of transgender people and instead seeks to erase them from the federal vocabulary altogether and eliminate medical care for gender dysphoria at federally funded medical institutions," she wrote, adding that such a "bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
In the days after the order, major hospitals across the country—including in Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Colorado, and Virginia—suspended gender-affirming care programs, leaving thousands of trans youth without access to critical medical treatment.
Related: Major Virginia medical center stops gender-affirming care for minors after Trump’s executive order
The courts, however, have consistently ruled against these restrictions. In his February ruling, Hurson found that Trump’s orders discriminated against transgender people, violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, and overstepped the president’s authority by unilaterally rewriting federal spending laws. He noted that the government failed to provide any evidence that gender-affirming care was harmful, while plaintiffs—including PFLAG, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union—submitted extensive research proving the care is medically necessary and life-saving. All major medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree that access to gender-affirming care decreases distress and is effective at treating gender dysphoria.
King’s ruling echoes these findings, reaffirming that Trump cannot sidestep Congress to impose his policy agenda. Her 53-page decision again highlighted the unconstitutional nature of the orders, writing that they unfairly singled out transgender individuals for disparate treatment and lacked any legitimate governmental interest.
“The Executive Orders’ 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,” King wrote, pointing to the orders’ broad and harmful impact.
The repeated judicial rebukes are a lifeline for transgender youth and their families, but the legal battle isn’t over. The Trump administration is expected to appeal as additional lawsuits go through the courts.
