Legal Battles Against Gender-Affirming Care Providers Proceed Despite Federal Actions
Lawsuits targeting doctors, hospitals, and gender clinics offering gender-affirming care to minors are set to continue, despite former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at halting federal funding for what he termed "surgical mutilation" of minors. An attorney representing several individuals who have detransitioned (detransitioners) has confirmed that these legal actions will persist, signaling a protracted and complex legal battle surrounding the provision of gender-affirming care for young people.
This development coincides with the Department of Education’s recent engagement with detransitioners, inviting them to a meeting on Detrans Awareness Day. This meeting underscores the growing attention and scrutiny surrounding gender-affirming care, particularly for minors, and highlights the experiences of those who have reversed or discontinued their gender transition.
Mark Trammell, an executive attorney at the Center for American Liberty, representing several detransitioners, described the individuals he represents as "young women who, as early as 13 years old, were victimized by this gender industrial complex." He elaborated on the alleged harms experienced by his clients, stating, "We have other clients who had double mastectomies at 15, 16, they’re all put on puberty blockers, all put on off-label cross-sex hormones, and all without being afforded informed consent." These claims of inadequate informed consent and irreversible medical interventions form the basis of the legal challenges being pursued.
The legal landscape surrounding gender-affirming care has been further complicated by legal challenges to Trump’s executive order. Shortly after the order took effect, a federal judge in Baltimore issued a temporary restraining order, effectively halting its implementation. This ruling allowed some hospitals that had previously complied with the order to resume offering gender-affirming treatments.
Trammell cited Children’s Hospital Los Angeles as an example of an institution that had re-introduced some of its "so-called gender-affirming treatments" following the issuance of the restraining order. While the executive order’s impact has been limited by legal challenges, Trammell emphasized the potential of lawsuits to achieve justice for detransitioners. "But what can stick is lawsuits," Trammell stated. "And at the end of the day, we can achieve justice. We can secure justice for these young women by hopefully recovering financial damages for what they’ve suffered."
Trammell highlighted that their involvement in gender ideology-related lawsuits began with cases involving social transitions in schools. He cited the case of Jessica Konen, which resulted in a settlement with a school district, as an example of their work in this area. He explained that many parents became aware of the issue when they discovered that schools were socially transitioning children, sometimes as young as fifth grade, without notifying parents.
One of Trammell’s clients, Aurora Regino, learned that her daughter was being socially transitioned from female to male in school, including using a male name and pronouns, without any communication with her mother. This lack of parental notification and involvement has become a central concern for many parents and advocacy groups.
Trammell outlined the legal strategy being employed in these cases, stating, "We’re suing doctors individually, holding them personally liable. We’re also suing the hospitals that employ them. And so these are, again, these are cases that are being brought in tort. So the idea is we’re going to sue the individuals who caused the injury." This approach aims to hold individual healthcare providers and institutions accountable for alleged harms resulting from gender-affirming care.
The Department of Education’s recent meeting with detransitioners and activists reflects a growing dialogue surrounding the potential harms associated with gender ideology. The department, in a news release, stated that the group shared its concerns about gender ideology in schools with the new Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon.
Trammell described the administration’s meeting with the activists as "encouraging," noting that it was significant to see them "even recognizing just their existence." Secretary McMahon issued a statement emphasizing the importance of parental involvement and protecting children from potential harm. "No teacher should attempt to persuade or coerce a student to undergo a gender transition," McMahon stated. "No parent should be lied to or prevented from knowing what is going on with their child’s mental or physical health. We stand firmly alongside parents, professionals, advocates, and especially detransitioners, who understand firsthand the damage caused by indoctrinating kids to believe that they can ever be born in the wrong body."
Despite the federal judge’s restraining order, the previous administration continued to pursue efforts to limit gender-affirming care. The administration reminded hospitals of "the dangerous chemical and surgical mutilation of children, including interventions that cause sterilization," in a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo sent out to hospitals and medical providers.
The HHS memo further stated, "CMS may begin taking steps in the future to align policy, including CMS-regulated provider requirements and agreements, with the highest-quality medical evidence in the treatment of the nation’s children in order to protect children from harmful, often irreversible mutilation, including sterilization practices." The memo also expressed concerns about the increasing prevalence of medical interventions for gender dysphoria in children, stating, "Initiated with an underdeveloped body of evidence and now known to cause long-term and irreparable harm to some children, CMS may begin taking steps in the future to adjust its policies to reflect this reality and the lack of medical evidence in support of these harmful treatments."
These actions by the previous administration underscore the ongoing debate and controversy surrounding gender-affirming care for minors. The legal challenges, coupled with the increasing political attention to the issue, suggest that this debate will continue to be a prominent and contentious topic in the years to come. The outcome of these lawsuits and the future policy decisions regarding gender-affirming care will have a significant impact on the lives of transgender and gender-diverse youth, as well as the healthcare providers who serve them. The legal and political landscape remains dynamic, and the long-term implications of these developments are yet to be fully understood.
