Latest news with #Hurson
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Families say Trump administration violates court order on youth gender treatments
By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) -Families of transgender teens and LGBT advocacy groups on Friday said that U.S. health agencies had violated a court ruling that blocked them from enforcing President Donald Trump's executive order halting federal funding to healthcare providers that offer gender transition treatments to people under 19. The plaintiffs said the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the ruling by issuing a memo to healthcare providers on Wednesday that it "may consider" terminating federal grants if they provide transgender healthcare to minors, including puberty blockers, hormones or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. Two other health agencies also sent out the memo, which used the same title as Trump's order, Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, on Thursday. The CMS memo came the day after U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson in Greenbelt, Maryland blocked the administration from cutting off funds to healthcare providers to enforce Trump's order, or another executive order barring the use of federal funds to "promote gender ideology." Hurson extended his earlier temporary ruling for as long as the lawsuit is pending. The plaintiffs said on Friday that the new memos attempted to get around Hurson's order by telling providers that funding may be cut off in the future, rather than cutting it off immediately, but would nonetheless immediately harm families by intimidating hospitals into stopping the treatments. "That conditional phrasing changes nothing," the plaintiffs said in their motion. "The notices are designed to inflict on plaintiffs precisely the same immediate harm as the Executive Orders in precisely the same way: through the (renewed) threat of revocation of funding." They asked Hurson to enforce his earlier ruling by ordering the agencies to withdraw the memo. CMS and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In addition to the lawsuit by the families and LGBT rights group PFLAG, the Democrat-led states of Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington have also sued over the Republican president's orders. U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King in Seattle, who is overseeing that case, last week issued a preliminary injunction in the states' favor. Unlike Hurson's nationwide order, her ruling is limited to enforcement within the four states. Both judges, who were appointed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, agreed with plaintiffs that Trump's orders exceeded his authority to control federal funds and illegally discriminated against transgender people. More than half of the 50 states have passed laws or policies that ban transgender healthcare for minors, some of which have been blocked or overturned by the courts. A challenge to Tennessee's ban has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose ultimate ruling could determine the legality of such bans.
Reuters
08-03-2025
- Health
- Reuters
Families say Trump administration violates court order on youth gender treatments
March 7 (Reuters) - Families of transgender teens and LGBT advocacy groups on Friday said that U.S. health agencies had violated a court ruling that blocked them from enforcing President Donald Trump's executive order halting federal funding to healthcare providers that offer gender transition treatments to people under 19. The plaintiffs said the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the ruling by issuing a memo, opens new tab to healthcare providers on Wednesday that it "may consider" terminating federal grants if they provide transgender healthcare to minors, including puberty blockers, hormones or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Two other health agencies also sent out the memo, which used the same title as Trump's order, opens new tab, Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, on Thursday. The CMS memo came the day after U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson in Greenbelt, Maryland blocked the administration from cutting off funds to healthcare providers to enforce Trump's order, or another executive order, opens new tab barring the use of federal funds to "promote gender ideology." Hurson extended his earlier temporary ruling for as long as the lawsuit is pending. The plaintiffs said on Friday that the new memos attempted to get around Hurson's order by telling providers that funding may be cut off in the future, rather than cutting it off immediately, but would nonetheless immediately harm families by intimidating hospitals into stopping the treatments. "That conditional phrasing changes nothing," the plaintiffs said in their motion. "The notices are designed to inflict on plaintiffs precisely the same immediate harm as the Executive Orders in precisely the same way: through the (renewed) threat of revocation of funding." They asked Hurson to enforce his earlier ruling by ordering the agencies to withdraw the memo. CMS and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In addition to the lawsuit by the families and LGBT rights group PFLAG, the Democrat-led states of Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington have also sued over the Republican president's orders. U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King in Seattle, who is overseeing that case, last week issued a preliminary injunction in the states' favor. Unlike Hurson's nationwide order, her ruling is limited to enforcement within the four states. Both judges, who were appointed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, agreed with plaintiffs that Trump's orders exceeded his authority to control federal funds and illegally discriminated against transgender people. More than half of the 50 states have passed laws or policies that ban transgender healthcare for minors, some of which have been blocked or overturned by the courts. A challenge to Tennessee's ban has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose ultimate ruling could determine the legality of such bans.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump order threatening funding for institutions that provide gender-affirming care for minors
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday blocking enforcement of the Trump administration's executive order threatening federal funding for institutions that provide gender-affirming care for anyone under 19. U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson of Maryland ordered the defendants to file a status report with the court by March 11 detailing their compliance with the court's order. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other groups filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of multiple families and youths who are members of PFLAG National, a nonprofit group supporting the friends and families of LGBTQ people. They alleged that President Donald Trump's order disrupted their care. The executive order blocked hospitals and clinics that receive federal funding from providing gender-affirming care to those under age 19. The judge paused the administration's order last month, prompting many providers who had suspended care to resume it under the court's temporary restraining order. Hurson wrote in Tuesday's order that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the hardships they were suffering were the result of discontinuation of what medical professionals had deemed to be "essential care." The hardships, he added, were "potentially catastrophic." "Specifically," Hurson wrote, "the sudden denial or interruption of Plaintiffs' medical care has caused or is expected to soon cause unwanted physical changes, depression, increased anxiety, heightened gender dysphoria, severe distress, risk of suicide, uncertainty about how to obtain medical care, impediments to maintaining a social life, and fear of discrimination, including hate crimes." In court filings, the Trump administration opposed the plaintiffs' request for relief, saying their 'arguments concern hypothetical downstream action that may or may not result from' the executive order. The administration added that the 'plaintiffs here may be incidentally harmed depending on how those institutions react.' Hurson's preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the court decides on the merits of the case. Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, applauded the judge's decision and criticized Trump's executive order. 'This order from President Trump is a direct effort to threaten the well-being of transgender people while denying them equal protection under the law, enacted by coercing doctors to follow Trump's own ideology rather than their best medical judgment," Block said in a statement. This article was originally published on
NBC News
05-03-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Judge blocks Trump order threatening funding for institutions that provide gender-affirming care for youths
A federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Trump administration's executive order threatening federal funding for institutions that provide gender-affirming care for anyone under 19. U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson of Maryland ordered the defendants to file a status report with the court by March 11, detailing their compliance with the court's order. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and other groups in February on behalf of multiple families and youths who are members of PFLAG National, a nonprofit supporting the friends and families of LGBTQ people. They alleged that their care was disrupted by President Donald Trump's order. The executive order blocked hospitals and clinics that receive federal funding from providing gender-affirming care to those under the age of 19. The judge previously paused the administration's order in February, prompting many providers who had suspended care to resume under the court's temporary restraining order. Hurson wrote in Tuesday's order that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the hardships they were suffering were the result of the discontinuation of what medical professionals had deemed to be "essential care." The hardships, Hurson added, were "potentially catastrophic." "Specifically," Hurson wrote, "the sudden denial or interruption of Plaintiffs' medical care has caused or is expected to soon cause unwanted physical changes, depression, increased anxiety, heightened gender dysphoria, severe distress, risk of suicide, uncertainty about how to obtain medical care, impediments to maintaining a social life, and fear of discrimination, including hate crimes." In court filings, the Trump administration opposed the plaintiffs' request for relief, saying their 'arguments concern hypothetical downstream action that may or may not result from' the executive order. The administration added that the 'plaintiffs here may be incidentally harmed depending on how those institutions react.' Hurson's preliminary injunction will remain in place until the court decides on the merits of the case. Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, applauded the judge's decision and criticized Trump's executive order. 'This order from President Trump is a direct effort to threaten the well-being of transgender people while denying them equal protection under the law, enacted by coercing doctors to follow Trump's own ideology rather than their best medical judgment," Block said in a statement.
New York Times
05-03-2025
- Health
- New York Times
Judge Blocks Trump Orders to Stop Funds for Trans Youth Health Providers
Federal funding for hospitals across the country that provide gender-transition treatments for people under the age of 19 will remain in place under a federal judge's ruling in Baltimore on Tuesday. The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Brendan A. Hurson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, blocks a Trump administration effort to withhold funds from hospitals unless they stop providing gender-transition treatment to transgender youths. A similar decision in a separate case had already blocked the administration's plan but applied only to four states. The new ruling expands to all states the pause on the Trump efforts while the legal case proceeds. Tuesday's ruling came in a case brought by six transgender individuals between the ages of 12 and 18, along with parents and advocacy groups. Plaintiffs in the case, who live in Maryland, New York and Massachusetts, said that their access to treatment was threatened by two of Mr. Trump's executive orders that seek to limit federal support for youth gender medicine. One of the executive orders directs federal agencies to ensure that grant funding for research or education does not support 'gender ideology,' which it defines as the idea that 'males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.' The second order specifically directs agencies to withhold funds from medical providers that offer puberty blockers, hormone therapies and surgeries to people younger than 19 for the purpose of gender transition. After Mr. Trump issued the orders, several clinics canceled appointments, including for plaintiffs in the case. Judge Hurson, an appointee of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., had issued a temporary restraining order in February, finding that Mr. Trump had likely exceeded his authority by directing the federal agencies to withhold funds appropriated by Congress. But the injunction issued on Tuesday signals that the government will need to overcome significant legal challenges to carry out its plans. The judge also found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims that the executive orders violated existing laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. The ruling is the latest roadblock in a string of court challenges to Mr. Trump's effort to stop taxpayer-funded institutions and government agencies from supporting gender transition and from recognizing people based on their gender identities. 'The Court cannot fathom discrimination more direct than the plain pronouncement of a policy resting on the premise that the group to which the policy is directed does not exist,' Judge Hurson wrote. Last month, another federal judge blocked Mr. Trump's directive to withhold gender-transition medical treatment for federal prisoners and to house transgender female inmates with men. The administration has sought to bar transgender women and girls from competing in women's sports; to no longer reflect the gender identities of transgender people on passports; and to bar references to gender identity in executive departments and agencies. Next week, another federal judge will hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging the administration's plan to bar openly transgender people from serving in the military. The order on medical treatments, titled 'Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,' states that the goal is to protect young people from long-term effects that may cause them to regret undergoing the treatments. The Trump administration, the order says, will enforce laws that 'prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.' The question of when medical transition is appropriate for young people has been the subject of heated debate. Genital surgery is almost never performed on minors. Several European countries have limited puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatments after scientific reviews. Since 2021, 24 states in America have barred minors from receiving the treatments. But the American Academy of Pediatrics and most major medical groups in the United States endorse youth gender medicine as effective in relieving the psychological distress that many young trans people say they experience when their bodies do not reflect their internal sense of gender. In court documents, plaintiffs and their families said they feared negative effects — including anxiety, depression and unwanted physical changes — if treatment were withheld. Judge Hurson's order focused largely on the fundamental issue of separation of powers. He cited another ruling related to a challenge to the administration's sweeping freeze on trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, writing that the government in this case has 'likewise 'attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it.''
