A federal judge in Seattle ruled an executive order by President Donald Trump unconstitutional late Friday, as she extended the pause on the order’s funding freeze for gender-affirming care for youth.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Lauren King to grant the state’s request for a preliminary injunction continues the temporary block she ordered two weeks ago. King indicated then that she saw the president’s order as “blatantly” disciminating against transgender youth, and likely a constitutional violation.
On Friday, King wrote of what she saw as another constitutional problem: “The Court’s holding here is not about the policy goals that President Trump seeks to advance; rather it is about reaffirming the structural integrity of the Constitution by ensuring that executive action respects congressional authority.”
Her ruling, issued at about 9:30 p.m., “preserves an enduring system of checks and balances that the Founders considered to be ‘essential to the preservation of liberty,'” King explained, quoting a decision in the 1989 case Mistretta v. United States.
The deadline Friday was tight. King’s temporary restraining order — sought by Attorney General Nick Brown — was to expire at midnight. If the judge did not issue an extension before then, Trump’s executive order would have again taken effect.
“The president’s disregard for the Constitution is obvious and intentional,” Brown said in a statement after the Friday ruling. “But once again, states and the courts have stepped up to affirm the rule of law and the values that hold us together as a nation.”
Brown’s request for the injunction pauses the Trump order in states named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit — Washington, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado.
Brown has said the temporary halt should offer protection to pediatric gender-affirming care providers, some of whom paused scheduling appointments after Trump’s order was issued.
The injunction orders the U.S. government to provide notice to agencies and their employees, contractors and grantees by March 6, and remains in effect until the case ends, or until it’s overruled by a higher court.
The defeat for the Trump administation stems from a lawsuit Brown filed in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in early February to undo the president’s directive barring federal funding for gender-affirming care for trans and gender-diverse minors. Federal support includes grants and insurance programs such as Tricare and Medicaid, Trump’s executive order says.
Many appointments and procedures for gender-affirming care have been put on hold around the country, including in Washington, though some hospitals have already reversed that and put surgeries back on schedule. Seattle Children’s in February abruptly pushed out some gender-affirming surgeries for patients under 19, following Trump’s executive order.
The hospital has declined to provide updates on the status of those surgeries, but one Whidbey Island family with a trans 17-year-old son confirmed Friday his canceled top surgery was rescheduled to last week, after being taken off the schedule earlier in February.
William McGinty, with the Attorney General’s Office, said in court hearing Friday afternoon that a Seattle-area hospital that had canceled gender-affirming surgeries after the executive order resumed procedures after King’s first ruling. He declined to name the hospital.
During the Friday hearing, King pressured Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal to clarify parts of Trump’s executive orders related to trans people, including what the administration thinks “promoting gender ideology” means, and articulate “legitimate government interest” in providing gender-affirming care.
Andrapalliyal, as she had two weeks ago, told the judge the lawsuit was premature, arguing it wasn’t yet clear how all federal agencies will interpret the orders, as no funding had been withheld to date.
McGinty reiterated that people already have been impacted by Trump’s order. After King granted the temporary restraining order Feb. 14, patients and providers “breathed a collective sigh of relief,” he said.
“People still need the court’s protection,” McGinty said. “This is a matter of life or death. We’re asking for a preliminary injunction today to protect all plaintiffs.”
The lawsuit asserts that Trump’s order is unconstitutional for three reasons, including that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by singling out trans people for mistreatment and discrimination. Brown also argued that the order violates the 10th Amendment by attempting to regulate state medical practices, and constitutional separation of powers by taking over Congress’ spending abilities.
King, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2021, agreed Friday that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving their claims and that they were also “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” the order says.
King approved all parts of the state’s injunction request, except for a section related to the U.S. Department of Justice prioritizing enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation, which is barred in U.S. Code. While plaintiffs argued the section violates separation of powers and the 10th Amendment, King decided there isn’t standing to challenge that part of Trump’s order.
A similar lawsuit has been filed in Maryland, where a federal judge in February also temporarily blocked Trump’s order around gender-affirming care for youth. That separate lawsuit was filed on behalf of families with transgender or nonbinary children who allege their health care has already been compromised.
The judge in that case, Judge Brendan Hurson, extended his temporary restraining order, pending a ruling on a preliminary injunction. McGinty said Friday he didn’t think that route “would be appropriate here,” as Colorado, which joined the lawsuit after the initial filing, was not included in King’s temporary restraining order and so would not be protected by an extension of that order.
The gender-affirming care executive order is one of several from the Trump administration restricting transgender rights, including when playing sports, serving in the military and in prison. The president has also declared he will only recognize “two sexes,” male and female, which are “not changeable.”
After Friday’s preliminary injunction hearing, Brown pulled the focus back to Trump, saying he didn’t want to dwell much on individual attorney arguments.
“This case is about the unjust action of the president of the United States,” he said. “It is really disappointing that we continually have to come to court to protect the people from their own president.”
Information from The Seattle Times archives is included in this report.