Baltimore — A federal judge on Thursday blocked parts of two executive orders issued by President Trump that seek to restrict gender-affirming care.
Following a hearing, U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson determined that a group of transgender teens and LGBTQ organizations who sued were likely to prevail on all of their claims that the orders lack authority and constitute illegal and unconstitutional discrimination.
“Stopping care in the middle of receiving it, or any care, really, calls into question whether the goals are to protect the recipients,” said Hurson, a former President Biden appointee.
It adds to a string of court orders issued across the country in recent days that have temporarily halted Trump’s actions, ranging from birthright citizenship restrictions to transferring incarcerated transgender women to male facilities to Trump’s firing of the head of a whistleblower office.
According to Hurson’s new ruling, various federal agencies are temporarily barred from withholding or conditioning funding based on a health care facility providing gender-affirming care anywhere in the country.
The plaintiffs, a group of transgender teens, their parents, and two organizations, PFLAG and GLMA, expressed concern that hospitals across the country quickly cancelled appointments after Trump issued two executive orders as part of what his administration has described as a crackdown on “gender ideology.”
One order, signed by Trump on his first day in office, states that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.” The other, signed by Trump on January 28, directs agencies to ensure that federally funded institutions do not provide gender-transition treatments to people under the age of 19.
Hospitals across the country responded by suspending gender-affirming treatment while they reviewed Trump’s order, which could disrupt care for over 300,000 transgender minors nationwide.
“That order had immediate consequences,” Joshua Block, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney representing the plaintiffs, said during Thursday’s hearing.
The Justice Department disputed the plaintiffs’ arguments, claiming that the case was premature and should be postponed until further guidance was available. The judge rejected those arguments, describing the government’s position as “disingenuous” at one point.
“When there’s smoke coming out of your house, you don’t know what room it’s in, but you don’t wait to call 911 until you know the exact location of the fire,” Hurson told me. “These plaintiffs have received phone calls stopping their care.”
Over 50 people protested outside the federal courthouse in Baltimore on Thursday in support of transgender rights.
“The science clearly tells us that these kids know who they are, and that affirming care is critical to their mental health,” Rebecca Wald, a psychologist and mother of a transgender teen who protested, told me in an interview.
Emily Heinlein, who attended the protest with a sign reading “Protect Health Care and Democracy,” said she felt it was important to speak out.
“I’m worried that this executive order of banning health care for one group of people is really dangerous precedent,” Heinlein replied. “And if they are allowed to stand, will women’s health care be banned? Health care for any other group of people will be prohibited.
Hurson will not be the only judge to consider Trump’s order. Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon will ask a Seattle judge to block one of the provisions at a hearing Friday.
