- A judge blocked Trump’s gender care order.
- The ruling stops enforcement for now.
- More legal battles are expected.
A federal judge in Seattle has blocked President Donald Trump’s directive limiting access to gender-affirming care for minors, making it the second ruling in two days against the administration’s policy.
The temporary restraining order, issued by U.S. District Judge Lauren King on Friday, was in response to a legal challenge brought by Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, along with three physicians who provide gender-affirming care.
EDITOR’S PICK
- G.10 Marks 4th Anniversary with Palliatives and Educational Support, Urges Youths to Stay Focused
- Tragic Crash in Ayetoro, Epe: One Dead, Another Injured as Speeding Car Slams into Parked Truck
- Atiku Abubakar Disclose Motives Behind Meeting with Olusegun Obasanjo
The ruling prevents enforcement of Trump’s order while legal proceedings continue. Judge King, a Biden appointee, held a hearing earlier in the day and later granted the temporary block.
The decision follows a similar ruling on Thursday by a Maryland federal judge, who halted the order for 14 days in a separate case filed by the ACLU on behalf of transgender youth and LGBTQ rights groups.
Trump’s executive order, issued within his first week in office, threatens to revoke research and education grants from medical institutions that offer gender-affirming treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical procedures for patients under 19. The Democrat-led states that sued the administration argue that the order deprives transgender youth of life-saving medical care and is an unconstitutional overreach of executive power.
“This is a cruel and baseless attack on transgender youth, their families, and the doctors who provide them essential care,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. They further claimed that the order violates the Tenth Amendment by attempting to regulate medical practice, a power traditionally reserved for states.
The White House defended the directive, arguing it is meant to protect children from medical treatments that may have long-term consequences and lack sufficient evidence of efficacy. J
ustice Department lawyers also argued that the lawsuit was premature since no specific grants had been revoked under the order. They cited Article II of the Constitution, asserting that the president has the authority to direct federal agencies to pursue policy goals.
Meanwhile, legal battles over gender-affirming care continue nationwide. Half of U.S. states have enacted laws restricting access to such treatments for minors. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a Tennessee law limiting gender-affirming care, with a decision expected by July.
FURTHER READING
- Heartbreak in Yobe: Politician Loses Six Loved Ones to Chronic Kidney Disease
- Tensions Rise as Hamas Suspends Hostage Release
- UK PM Keir Starmer Urges World Leaders to Take HIV Test
The Trump administration has reversed the federal government’s previous stance, supporting the Tennessee law and urging the Supreme Court to uphold it.
With the legal battle escalating, advocates and opponents of gender-affirming care are watching closely as courts weigh the constitutionality of such restrictions.
Click HERE For Our Video Of the Week
