A federal district court judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday afternoon blocking the enforcement of Donald Trump’s sweeping Jan. 28 executive order that sought to shut down medical care for trans youth under the age of 19 nationwide.
Judge Brendan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, a Biden nominee, issued the decision from the bench earlier this afternoon and a written order is due out soon.
The ruling puts Trump’s executive order on hold while the case moves forward.
During Trump’s second week in office, he signed an executive order that declared the U.S. will not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” gender transition for people under the age of 19. The executive order specifically sought to block trans youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care, such as blocking medical professionals from prescribing hormones or puberty blockers to patients under the age of 19. This executive order was separate from the one Trump signed on his first day back in the White House, which sought to enable discrimination against trans people across multiple agencies and departments within the federal government through a very specific and somewhat bizarre assertion that there are only two genders “at conception.”
Quickly after Trump signed the executive order seeking to ban gender affirming care for trans youth on Jan. 28, hospitals in Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., among other places, announced their intentions to either suspend or review their care; many “abruptly halted medical care for transgender people under age 19, canceling appointments and turning away patients, including some who had been receiving this care for most of their life,” according to the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case that Hurson’s court is presiding over.
The ACLU, along with Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Maryland filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 4, on behalf of trans youth and their families whose health care had been blocked in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s order.
In Thursday’s hearing, Hurson heard arguments from plaintiffs, who requested a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs argued the EO was “unlawful and unconstitutional” because it violates anti-discrimination laws and attempts to block funds that have already been allocated by Congress.
The government argued that the executive order was not a ban on gender affirming care, but a “general policy directive,” claiming that the plaintiffs did not yet have grounds to sue, NBC News reported.
Hurson disagreed, per NBC News:
“In this situation, it is clear that these plaintiffs have received phone calls stopping their care, stopping their appointments, stopping their everything,” Hurson said during the hearing Thursday, adding that hospitals stopped care because of the order, which also seeks to prohibit federal funding of transition-related care for minors.
“I don’t know how you can credibly argue that this is not demanding the cessation of funding for gender affirming care,” he said.
Additionally, the executive order “seems to deny that this population even exists, or deserves to exist,” Hurson continued, according to the AP.
Lambda Legal told NBC News that they intend to request a preliminary injunction before the 14 days are up.
The Best Of TPM Today
Judicial Branch Scrambles To Limit Spillover From Trump’s Executive Branch Rampage
House GOP Makes Official Its Plan For Devastating Cuts To Medicaid
The White House Is Now Running The Justice Department
Yesterday’s Most Read Story
Not Hyperbole Anymore: Musk Is In Charge of the US Government
What We Are Reading
Emil Bove Revived His Career Defending Trump. Now He’s Upending the Justice Department.
Donald Trump Jr invests in ‘steroid Olympics’
Associated Press and the White House remain in standoff over access
