Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Trump’s Executive Order Ending Federal Funds for Youth Gender-Affirming Care

BALTIMORE, Md. — A group of litigants filed a legal challenge this Tuesday in a federal Maryland court, urging for a blockade against President Trump’s recent executive directive, which terminates all government funding dedicated to gender-affirming care for minors under 19. This lawsuit counts among several efforts to halt measures that litigants argue adversely affect transgender youth.

The legal action requests both preliminary and lasting injunctions, asserting that the presidential order stands in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution’s mandates on government spending. According to the plaintiffs, the executive branch lacks the authority to alter or negate budgetary allocations approved by Congress, as specified under Article I, Sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution; it further stipulates the president’s obligation to enforce the law as per Article II, Section 3.

The dispute brings to light claims of discrimination under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), notably that the executive order disenfranchises individuals on the basis of sex and disability. Notably, the ACA’s Section 1557 recognizes gender dysphoria as a disability, thereby extending protections to those diagnosed with it under the act’s non-discrimination provisions.

Additionally, the lawsuit touches on constitutional claims related to the Fifth Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Plaintiffs argue that the order unjustly discriminates by sex and age, and infringes upon the fundamental rights of parents to oversee their children’s medical care, a claim grounded in the Due Process Clause.

Highlighting the urgency of their cause, the plaintiffs detail the dire consequences already unfolding as a result of the order, noting canceled medical appointments and immense psychological distress among affected individuals, instances of which have escalated to suicidality.

This lawsuit follows closely on the heels of two other prominent court decisions. In recent weeks, a federal judge blocked a similar Trump administration order that ceased gender-affirming care for incarcerated individuals, citing violations under the Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment, which guards against substantial risks of harm. Another ruling prevented a freeze on federal aid funding, spotlighting potential violations linked to congressional powers of appropriation and spending.

As legal battles over gender-affirming care continue to surface across the country, this Maryland case emerges as a critical watch point for advocates and opponents alike, reflecting broader national debates over healthcare rights and presidential powers.

The article was automatically generated. The depicted people, facts, and circumstances may be inaccurately represented. For corrections or removal requests, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.