It’s a full-time mental load keeping up with the headlines these days. No one should have to do it alone. We’re taking a turn here with some running updates what’s going on legally with the Trump Administration’s attempts to ban, defund, or deny youth from obtaining medically necessary, evidence-based, and life-saving healthcare.
Where We Get Information:
There does not appear to be a single source of information that tracks all the cases.
- Just Security’s tracker is a great source of information
- Erin in the Morning
- Gender Justice League maintains a tracker of cases they are involved in.
- LawDork frequently reports on LGBTQ+ legal issues at the federal level
- Once information about cases are known, updates can be tracked via Courtlistener.org (a legal data nerd’s dream!)
What’s Going On?
The Trump Administration is attempting to stop gender affirming care for youth and 18-year-olds. They are doing this via executive orders and threats to stop all federal funding to organizations that provide care to under-19s. They have also declared that the administration will not recognize that gender exists separately from sex, nor will they grant legal status to gender separate from sex assigned at birth.
We intend this blog to be a living document: we’ll update as we can!
Why Under 19, Not Under 18?
Medicaid provides coverage to youth throughout their high school years: many people are both legally adults at age 18 or older and still in high school.
While the age of majority (when a person becomes an adult legally) is 18 in almost all states and Washington, D.C., Alabama, and Nebraska hold the age of majority at 19.
Executive Order Timeline
Executive Order on Jan 20, 2025 – proclaims that gender identity isn’t real, requires federal agencies to unpublish everything referring to gender identity, and ends “Federal funding of gender ideology”. Implements broad discrimination towards transgender people. “Denial of Gender order”
Executive Order on Jan 21, 2025 – proclaims that DEI and DEIA policies are illegal and discriminatory. DEI – Diversity, Equity, Inclusion; A = Accessibility. “DEI order”
Executive Order on Jan 28, 2025 – declared that the United States will not fund or support gender affirming care for anyone under age 19. Threatens hospitals and other organizations that provide transgender healthcare to youth and adults up to age 19 with an end to all federal funding if they continue to provide this care. “Denial of care order“
What Does The Legal Landscape Look Like?
Cases Against the Federal Government
| LAWSUIT NAME | WHO IS INVOLVED | WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED | STATUS (and link to Courtlistener.org) | MORE DETAIL |
| City, State, and Organizational Challenges | ||||
| State of Washington v. Trump | Washington, Oregon, Minnesota | The January 28th “Denial of Care” executive order | The executive order is temporarily blocked in WA, OR, and MN. Courtlistener – Washington v. Trump | Temporary Restraining Order Granted. The Federal government may not stop funding organizations in WA, OR, or MN because they provide transgender care to individuals under age 19. |
| PFLAG v. Trump | PFLAG, GLMA, Lambda Legal, the ACLU | The January 28th “Denial of Care” executive order | The executive order blocked nationwide. Courtlistener – PFLAG v. Trump | Injunction nationally applied. The Federal government may not stop funding to organizations that provide transgender health care to under 19s. |
| City of Seattle v. Trump | City of Seattle | January 20th and 21st “Denial of Gender” and “DEI” executive orders. | INJUNCTION GRANTED! Courtlistener – Seattle v. Trump | Preliminary injunction granted on 10/31/25. Section 3(b)(iv) of the DEI executive order and section 3(g) of the Denial of Gender order may not be enforced against the City of Seattle. 12/29/25 – The administration is appealing. |
| Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Trump | 17 plaintiffs: AGs of 15 states, the governor of PA, and the District of Columbia | January 28th “Denial of Care” executive order | Courtlistener – Mass v. Trump | 11/17/25 – stay on proceedings lifted as the federal government is back open. The DOJ has been directed to file their motion to dismiss and reasoning by 11/21/25. Plaintiffs will have until 12/22/25 to respond. DOJ filed their motion to dismiss on 11/21/25. |
| NEW 12/23/25: A coalition of 19 states has sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, RFK Jr., and the HHS Inspector General over the 12/18/2025 HHS declaration that declared gender affirming care “unsafe and ineffective”. State of Oregon v. Kennedy (6:25-cv-02409) | The Attorneys General of Oregon, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia, and the governor of Pennsylvania. | WA AG Press Release Courtlistener State of Oregon v. Kennedy | ||
| Challenges to Subpoenas | ||||
| In Re 2025 UPMC Subpoena A. (2:25-mc-01069) | Families of youth receiving transgender healthcare at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center | Department of Justice subpoena to University of Pittsburgh Medical Center demanding patient data | QUASHED!! Courtlistener – A. (2:25-mc-01069) | Motion to quash subpoena submitted 9/24/25. Judge Cathy Bissoon ordered the DOJ to submit any related subpoenas “in camera”, which means privately for the judge on 9/25/25. The order quashing QueerDoc’s subponea was added as an exhibit on 10/29/25. 12/24/25 – Judge Cathy Bissoon granted the plaintiffs request to quash the subpoena, specifiying that the quash applies to request numbers 11, 12 and 13 (mirroring the Philadelphia order). The DOJ was granted a request to talk about providing anonymized information instead of specific data. |
| In Re: Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-019 | Families of youth receiving transgender healthcare at Boston Children’s Hospital | Department of Justice subpoena to Boston Children’s Hospital demanding patient data | QUASHED! Courtlistener – Subpoena No 25-1431-019 Docket for the appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. | Motion to quash the subpoena is granted. “I find that the Government has failed to show proper purpose and, even if it had, that BCH has demonstrated that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose, motivated only by bad faith.” (from ruling) https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/boston-childrens-fights-back-for The Government has filed a motion to alter or amend (an appeal.) |
| In Re Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-014 | Families of youth receiving transgender healthcare at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) | Department of Justice subpoena to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia demanding patient data | Requests for specific data QUASHED!! Courtlistener – Subpoena No. 25-1431-014 | Motion to quash subpoena (deny the DOJ’s request for information) is being argued. Judge Kearny ordered the DOJ to submit information on related subpoenas on 8/20/25. Governors of 15 states plus Washington, DC. submitted a “friend of the court” motion in support of quashing the subpoena on 10/28/25. 11/21/25 – Motion to limit the subpoena is granted in part – detailed information (sections 11, 12, and 13) is denied. That same personally identifiable information may be redacted in sections 1 – 10 and 14 and 15. |
| QueerDoc PLLC v, United States Department of Justice (2:25-mc-00042) | QueerDoc – THAT’S US! | Department of Justice’s subpoena to QueerDoc demanding patient data | QUASHED!!! Courtlistener QueerDoc v. US DOJ | Subpoena quashed by Judge Jamal N. Whitehead on 10/27/25. Motion to seal denied, so information is public. The DOJ is appealing. |
| Department of Justice Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-030 | Children’s Hospital Colorado | Department of Justice subpoena to the Children’s Hospital Colorado demanding patient data | Courtlistener Department of Justice Administrative Subpoena No 25-1431-030 | Plaintiffs had filed a motion to quash and a motion to restrict. The motion to restrict was denied on 11/17/25, and the docket became visible. Documents are available as of 11/21/25. |
| In Re: 2025 Subpoena to Children’s National Hospital (1:25-cv-03780) | Families of youth treated at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. | Department of Justice subpoena to the Children’s National Hospital demanding patient data | Courtlistener In Re: 2025 Subpoena to Children’s National Hospital (1:25-cv-03780 | Filed 11/17/25. |
| In Re 2025 Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles Subpoena (2:25-cv-11183) | Families of youth treated at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. | Department of Justice subpoena to the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles demanding patient data | Courtlistener In Re 2025 Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles Subpoena (2:25-cv-11183) | Filed 11/21/25 |
| Seattle Children’s Hospital v. United States Department of Justice (2:25-mc-00041) | Seattle Children’s Hospital | Department of Justice subpoena to Seattle Children’s Hospital demanding patient data | QUASHED!! Courtlistener: Seattle Children’s Hospital v. United States Department of Justice (2:25-mc-00041) | Seattle Children’s filed quash the subpoena under seal, and later requested that the seal be lifted. Judge John H. Chun ordered both: the supboena was quashed on 9/3/25 and unsealed on 12/11/25. |
Non-Federal Actions and Lawsuits
| NAME / IDENTIFIER | WHO IS INVOLVED | WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED | STATUS | MORE DETAIL |
| Complaint to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission re: UMPC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) stopping care. | Five transgender individuals who lost care when UMPC stopped transgender healthcare for under 19s. | UMPC’s decision to stop care | https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trans-patients-file-groundbreaking | |
| Delaware AG letter to Nemours | State of Delaware’s Office of the Attorney General, Nemours Children’s Hospital | Nemours announced in June that it would accept no new blocker or hormone youth patients, citing the executive orders. | Delaware is a shield state by state executive order. https://spotlightdelaware.org/2025/08/17/delaware-ag-urges-nemours-to-reconsider-gender-affirming-care-restrictions/ | |
| Michigan Attorney General warns University of Michigan Health that dropping transgender care for under 19s may violate state law | Michigan Attorney General, University of Michigan Health | UMC announced on August 25th that it would be suspending transgender health care to under 19s and that it had received a DOJ subpoena. | Michigan is not a shield state. Erin In the Morning article Talking Points Memo article UofM’s statement on stopping care | |
| NY Attorney General instructs NY health care organizations that stopping gender care would violate NY anti-discrimination laws | Warning to New York health care organizations that stop care to transgender youth and adults under age 19. | NBC News Article | ||
| GLAD Law files an official complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in regard to Yale New Haven Health and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center’s decision to stop gender affirming care. | GLAD Law on behalf of families of youth and one young adult patient whose care was stopped. | Yale New Haven Health and Connecticut Children’s Medical’s stopping youth gender care in response to federal threats. | Erin in the Morning |
Legalese:
What is an Executive Order?
Executive orders are policy directions that instruct how to implement a law or how to prioritize actions of the state. Read the ACLU’s article “What Is an Executive Order and How Does it Work?” Executive orders are not laws and cannot take the place of or violate existing federal laws. Once published, they can be challenged, either by Congress changing the affected law or by a court ruling that the executive order is unlawful.
What is a Subpoena?
A subpoena is a request for information. The recipient of the subpoena can say “nope, we don’t think we have to do this,” and ask a court to rule that the asker does not have the right to the information. This request of the court is asking to “quash” the subpoena. The recipient of the subpoena may “file under seal” which keeps all information about the subpoena and who it was sent to private unless a judge rules that it should be public information.
On July 9th, the DOJ announced that they had sent subpoenas demanding patient data to up to two dozen organizations. Responses to those subpoenas (motions to quash) are starting to be revealed via court orders (see above).
What does “quash” mean?
“Quash” can mean “to push down completely”. When used to refer to a subpoena, it means that the subpoena is declared invalid and voided. If quashed, the information requested by the subpoena does not need to be provided.
What’s the difference between a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO,) an injunction, and a stay?
- A Temporary Restraining Order stops an action while a legal challenge works its way through the system.
- An injunction prevents someone from taking an action. It may be temporary or permanent. A law, statute, or executive order is called “enjoined” if an injunction is issued.
- A stay pauses legal proceedings while another action happens. The stay may be temporary or indefinite with no stated end. If a stay is lifted, the legal proceedings start again.
Other QueerDoc Articles:
- QueerDoc’s Response to the 1/28/25 Executive Order on Youth Care
- Navigating Youth Care Access After The January 28th Executive Order
- Data Privacy in 2025: Operational Security (Op-Sec)
Details on some of the lawsuits:
State of Washington vs. Trump (filed February, 2025 )
Current Status: Temporary Restraining Order (limited scope) GRANTED
Attorneys General of Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, along with three individual doctors, sue to block the presidential executive order of January 28, 2025 that halts federal funds to organizations that provide medically necessary, evidence-based, and life-saving health care to transgender youth. (WA AG press release)
A Temporary Restraining Order was granted on 2/14/25. WA AG Press Release on the temporary restraining order.
PFLAG vs. Trump (filed February, 2025)
Current Status: Injunction blocks the federal government from withholding funds to organizations that provide transgender care to individuals under the age of 19. Nationwide.
PFLAG, GLMA, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU sue to block the January 28, 2025 executive order halting federal funding to organizations that provide transgender healthcare to youth. A preliminary injunction was granted on February 11, 2025. An extension to that injunction was granted on March 4, 2025. COVERS EVERYONE.
Watch https://pflag.org/press/pflagvtrump/ for updates.
City of Seattle vs. Trump (filed July, 2025)
The City of Seattle sues to block the executive orders that declare that gender is not different from sex and that DEI/DEIA programs, policies, and efforts illegal and discriminatory.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Trump (filed August, 2025)
Attorneys General in 15 states (plus one Governor and the District of Columbia) sue to block the January executive order banning youth care (Michigan, New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, along with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro). This lawsuit challenges the executive order declaring that the United States will not support transgender care for individuals under the age of 19 and that it will enforce laws against this care.