Multiple plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on Tuesday asking a federal court in Maryland to block President Trump’s executive order to discontinue all federal funding for gender-affirming care in individuals under the age of 19. The lawsuit asked for a preliminary and permanent injunction based on several grounds.
Plaintiffs alleged that the order violated the US Constitution’s Appropriation and Spending Clauses. The lawsuit stated that the President “cannot directly and unilaterally amend or cancel appropriations Congress has duly enacted.” Under Article I, Sections 7 and 8, only Congress can expend Treasury funds by enacting the appropriation into law. Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 charges the President to “take care the Laws [enacted by Congress] be faithfully executed.”
Plaintiffs also alleged that the order contravened the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by discriminating against transgendered people on the basis of sex and disability. Section 18116 of the Act provides that “[f]ederal financial assistance” may not be contingent on a person’s sex or disability. Gender dysphoria qualifies as a “disability” under Section 1557 of the ACA.
Finally, plaintiffs alleged that by basing the order on sex and age, Trump violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. They stated that the Equal Protection Clause protects against discrimination based on sex and the Due Process Clause “protects the fundamental rights of parents to decide on medical care for their children.” The lawsuit did not cite federal precedent to support the due process claim.
According to the lawsuit, the order would and is causing “concrete and immediate effects” that “negatively” impacted the plaintiffs and their families. Plaintiffs alleged that appointments with medical providers had been canceled causing “severe distress” and “suicidality” in some individuals.
Trump’s order halting gender-affirming care for incarcerated people was blocked last week by a federal judge. The judge cited the Equal Protection Clause and the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on subjecting incarcerated people to “known and substantial risk of harm.” Another federal judge blocked an order freezing federal aid funding on the basis of potential violations of Congress’ appropriation and spending powers.
