SEATTLE—A federal judge Friday evening granted Washington state’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald J Trump’s Executive Orders banning gender-affirming care (including irreversible surgeries) to youth who identify as transgender.
“This [Executive] 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. Such ‘[a] bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,’” United States District Judge Lauren King wrote in her ruling.
The executive order titled Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation and issued on January 28, directs agencies to cut off federal research and education grants to medical institutions, including hospitals and medical schools, that provide gender-affirming care to anyone under the age of 19. This would prevent hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants from flowing to state medical schools and hospitals.
“The president’s disregard for the Constitution is obvious and intentional,” Attorney General Nick Brown said. “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.”
Friday’s ruling comes weeks after Judge King granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration from banning such care for people under 19. Attorney General Brown filed the multi-state federal lawsuit on February 7 to halt a presidential executive order that threatens to end federal funding to medical institutions providing gender-affirming care.
President Trump’s executive order—which Brown called clearly illegal and unusually cruel at the time of filing—also directs criminal enforcement against medical professionals and patients involved in such care. The lawsuit seeks to block federal agencies from acting on this order.
The state is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado. Three individual doctors also joined as plaintiffs in the case, bringing claims on their own behalf and that of the minors for whom they provide care.
The states argued the order violates the 5th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by singling out transgender individuals for mistreatment and discrimination.
Additionally, the AG’s asserts that Congress has authorized research and education funding for medical institutions in Washington state, and the president cannot unilaterally overrule congressional intent. The AGs further asserts that the president cannot unilaterally regulate or criminalize medical practices in Washington state, which are protected by the 10th Amendment.
In granting Washington’s preliminary injunction motion, the Judge King agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to show that the challenged executive orders violate equal protection and the separation of powers.
The Judge King went on to firmly warn the federal government against baseless and “bad faith” threats to criminalize medically necessary gender-affirming care.
“Federal prosecutors and law enforcement are legally and ethically obligated to follow the law, and serious consequences could result from advancing a groundless criminal prosecution,” Judge King wrote.
The Court went on to find that the record is “bereft of any evidence,” that any of the thousands of the licensed doctors and clinicians providing “bottom surgeries” in the Plaintiff States could plausibly be accused of violating “female genital mutilation” federal laws as minors under 18 are subject to laws similarly criminalizing female genital mutilation.
“… all parties emphasize that “female genital mutilation” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 116 differs markedly from the Listed Services. Dkt. No. 223 at 24 (Defendants: “[B]y its terms, th[e] direction [in the Medical Services EO to prioritize enforcement] addresses ‘female genital mutilation,’ which is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 116, and not ‘chemical and surgical mutilation,’ which is defined separately and differently in the Executive Order.”); Dkt. No. 164 at 35 (Plaintiffs: “Lawful, state-regulated, medically appropriate and necessary gender-affirming care is not female genital mutilation under 18 U.S.C. § 116.”). Section 116 makes it a crime to “perform[], attempt[] to perform, or conspire[] to perform female genital mutilation on another person who has not attained the age of 18 years,” Judge King wrote.
The Attorney General’s Office shared that the effort to litigate this case is funded by the Attorney General’s Civil Justice Operating Fund, which is funded by recoveries made by the office in civil enforcement actions made on behalf of Washingtonians.
The Honorable Judge Lauren King, the first Native American to serve Washington state, was appointed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in 2021. She was nominated by former President Joe Biden on March 30, 2021.
Author: Mario Lotmore
