Seven families with transgender or nonbinary children filed a lawsuit Tuesday over President Donald Trump's executive orders to narrowly define the sexes and halt federal support for gender-affirming health care for transgender people under age 19.
PFLAG, a national group for family of LGBTQ+ people; and GLMA, a doctors organization, are also plaintiffs in the court challenge in a Baltimore federal court.
It comes one week after calling for the federal government to stop funding the medical care through federal government-run health insurance programs including Medicaid and TRICARE.
Kristen Chapman, the mother of one of the plaintiffs in the case, said her family moved to Richmond, Virginia, from Tennessee in 2023 because of a ban on gender-affirming care in their home state. Her 17-year-old daughter, Willow, had an initial appointment scheduled for last week with a new provider who would accept Medicaid. But Trump signed his order the day before and the hospital said it could not provide care.
“I thought Virginia would be a safe place for me and my daughter,†Kristen Chapman said in a statement. "Instead, I am heartbroken, tired, and scared.â€
She's not the only one, Brian Bond, the CEO of PFLAG, said on a conference call with reporters. “We are receiving a drumbeat of calls from parents whose kids' care is being canceled.â€
The ACLU and Lambda Legal, who are representing the plaintiffs, want a judge to put the order on hold. In a court filing Tuesday, they said Trump's executive orders are “unlawful and unconstitutional†because they seek to withhold federal funds previously authorized by Congress and because they violate antidiscrimination laws. The challenge also says that the order infringes on the rights of parents.
Like legal challenges to state bans on gender-affirming care, they also argue that the policy discriminates because it does not prohibit federal funds for the same treatments when they're not used for gender transition.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Some providing the coverage while they assess how the order affects them. , who has repeatedly battled Trump in court, told hospitals in her state Monday that it would violate the law to stop offering gender-affirming care to people under 19.
Josh Block, an ACLU lawyer on the case, said that medical providers should continue gender-affirming care for people under 19. “It should not take either a protest, a letter from the attorney general or a TRO,†or temporary restraining order from the court for them to do so.
Trump's approach on transgender policy represents an abrupt change from the Biden administration, which sought to explicitly extend civil rights protections to transgender people.
Trump has used strong language, asserting in the order on gender-affirming care that "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.â€
Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, the doctors group in the legal challenge, said there are established medical standards for caring for transgender youth. “Now, an extreme political agenda is trying to overrule that expertise, putting young people and their providers in danger," Sheldon said in a statement. "We are confident that the law, science, and history are on our side.â€
In addition to the orders on health care access and , Trump has also signed orders that open the door to banning transgender people from and set up new rules about how about gender.
have already been filed on the military order and a plan to move transgender women in federal prisons to men's facilities. Others are , just as there have been challenges to of .
Researchers have found that adolescents receive the care, which includes treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgeries — though surgery is rare for children.
As transgender people have gained visibility and acceptance in some ways, there's been vehement pushback. At least 26 states have passed laws to restrict or ban the care for minors. The heard arguments last year but has not yet ruled on whether Tennessee's ban on the care is constitutional.
