BALTIMORE—A federal judge in Maryland on Feb. 13 issued a temporary restraining order blocking portions of two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that target funding for transgender procedures for individuals under the age of 19.
The ruling came after a lengthy hearing in which Judge Brendan Hurson repeatedly expressed doubt about the Trump administration’s position. The administration had argued that the order was focused on directing agencies to develop plans for revoking funding rather than an outright order to immediately revoke funding for organizations that provide transgender procedures.
They also argued that the plaintiffs, which included LGBT advocacy group PFLAG, were seeking overbroad relief and that they should have brought more targeted challenges to agency action.
The first order directs the head of each agency “that provides research or education grants to medical institutions, including medical schools and hospitals” to “immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”
The other executive order directs agencies to ensure federal funds “do not promote gender ideology,” including “the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”
Hurson said aspects of the president’s executive orders seemed legal but that these particular sections raised concerns. While issuing his order from the bench, Hurson said he thought plaintiffs made a compelling case that the administration was attempting to perform a function reserved for Congress. The plaintiffs, he said, were likely to succeed in their claim that the order was unconstitutional and had demonstrated that the president’s order caused individuals harm.
The initial lawsuit, filed on Feb. 5, leveled multiple allegations, including that the administration was usurping legislative authority by attempting to terminate or withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
The judge’s order came amid two other legal battles in which plaintiffs sued to stop a broader attempt at spending freezing by the Trump administration.
“The appropriation of the government’s resources is reserved for Congress, not the Executive Branch,” the judge said.
From the bench, Hurson said the restraining order would be nationwide in its scope and that a piecemeal approach wasn’t appropriate.
Harry Graver, an attorney with the Department of Justice (DOJ), suggested the lawsuit was premature and emphasized the phrasing in one of Trump’s executive orders directing agencies to “take appropriate steps.”
Hurson said the effect of the orders was more direct and referenced an email in which the Health Resources and Services Administration told grant recipients they could not use funds that didn’t align with Trump’s orders. The DOJ said the email had been rescinded while Hurson questioned how someone could rescind an email.
The orders “do not discriminate based on sex or any other protected class, and they bear a substantial relationship to important governmental objectives regarding the protection of children and adolescents from potentially dangerous and ineffective treatments such that they satisfy any possible standard of constitutional scrutiny anyway,” the brief read.
During the hearing, Hurson questioned the efficacy of including language about following applicable law. Part of his criticism of the order was that it interrupted procedures and drugs like puberty blockers and hormone drug administration suddenly rather than allowing for a tapering-off period. He also expressed concern that the administration’s actions were affecting a population already at a higher risk for suicide.
Both sides are expected to brief arguments for and against a preliminary injunction. DOJ said in court that it wasn’t committing to appealing the restraining order. However, the administration has already filed multiple appeals in other cases challenging its actions.
Trump’s order, entitled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” stated: “Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.”
“This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end,” it added.
Under the order, “chemical and surgical mutilation” was defined as the use of puberty blockers, the use of sex hormones, and surgical procedures “that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
The filing stated that “Willow’s family was able to schedule an appointment with the Children’s Hospital of Richmond for January 29, 2025, so that Willow could continue hormone treatment.” That hospital is part of the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center.
“A few hours before the appointment, however, a member of the VCU staff told Willow’s mother Kristen that, due to [Trump’s order], VCU would no longer be able to provide Willow’s necessary medical treatment,” it stated.
Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Hurson that Trump’s actions had a “terrorizing effect” on hospitals.
Trump’s order, meanwhile, decried what it described as medical professionals’ “reliance on junk science.”
“The blatant harm done to children by chemical and surgical mutilation cloaks itself in medical necessity, spurred by guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,” it said.
