Washington – In Seattle, a federal judge halted President Trump’s directive to limit access to gender affirming care to young people younger than 19. This is the second time in a short period of time that the president has been unable to restrict access.
The order was issued by U.S. district judge Lauren King on Friday in response to a legal challenge filed one week earlier by a group from three states – Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon – and three doctors who treat transgender people for gender dysphoria.
King, who was appointed by the former president Joe Biden, heard a state’s bid earlier on Friday to temporarily block enforcement of Trump’s executive order that limits access to gender affirming care for youth. The court docket showed that King agreed to issue a temporary restraining and would also issue a written decision.
The blockade will remain in place as long as the legal proceedings continue.
King’s ruling follows the similar decision of a federal Maryland judge who, on Thursday temporarily halted Mr. Trump’s executive action. The order was issued in response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, on behalf of a group consisting of seven youth as well as two LGBTQ rights groups.
The directive issued by the president in his first week as president threatens to reduce research and educational grants given to medical institutions who provide gender affirming care to children under 19 years of age. The order covers hormone therapy, puberty blocking drugs and surgical procedures.
The Democrat states who sued the Trump Administration over the order claimed that it deprived transgender youths of life-saving medical treatment. The Democrat-led states that sued the Trump administration over the order said it deprives transgender youth of life-saving medical care.
In their suit, state officials stated: “It’s an official declaration of bigotry by the president who directs agencies openly to discriminate against vulnerable young people on the basis their transgender and sex status.” It is also an egregious abuse of power. The order usurps Congress’ exclusive legislative and spending powers, and takes away the States’ historic police power to regulate the practice or medicine in violation with the Tenth Amendment.”
The White House has defended this order, claiming that it is part of a campaign to protect children against treatments with negative health effects and without evidence to support their effectiveness. In a filing, Justice Department lawyers stated that the lawsuit is premature as federal agencies had not threatened to revoke grants in question in the executive order.
The Justice Department also said that Article II of Constitution gives the President the authority to order agencies to take actions to advance his administration’s policy.
In their filing, they stated that “This sort of order – cutting off the Executive Branch’s ability to pursue a general plan of action – would be an extraordinary intrusion into a separate government branch and in violation of Article II.” “The president is constitutionally empowered to order his subordinates in accordance with applicable laws to pursue a broad policy goal.”
In recent years, half of the states have passed laws that restrict minors’ access to gender affirming care. The Supreme Court is currently examining whether one of these Tennessee laws was constitutional. It will likely make a ruling on the case brought by former president Joe Biden’s Administration, three families, and a physician by the start of July.
The Trump administration reversing the government’s position and saying Tennessee’s law did not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court was urged to take up the case.
