Federal judge in Seattle appears skeptical of DOJ in gender-affirming care lawsuit

SEATTLE – A federal judge in Seattle seemed to strongly doubt the answers of lawyers representing the Department of Justice during a preliminary hearing Friday afternoon, as the State of Washington sought to block a federal ban on gender-affirming care for those under 19 from going into effect.

Judge Lauren King, appointed to the bench by President Joe Biden, repeatedly questioned whether several federal agencies had misunderstood President Donald Trump’s executive orders in the days after it was issued.

“The CDC sent a notice saying that everything is immediately ceased?” King asked.

A Justice Department lawyer responded that the CDC notice had been rescinded, though King noted it was rescinded a week after it was issued.

“That was their understanding, that the executive order required immediate action,” King said. “Whether it was a misunderstanding or not, that was their understanding when they sent out that notice, that the executive order required them to do that.”

During the hearing, King said she would issue a ruling soon.

Trump’s order was initially challenged by Washington, Oregon and Minnesota, with Colorado later joining the effort. The states have argued the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment by singling out transgender individuals and seeks to block funds already authorized by Congress.

“We made a strong case that the president’s disregard for the Constitution here is obvious and intentional,” Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Friday. “Children don’t need protection from life-saving care. They need freedom from a lawless president.”

Friday’s hearing came two weeks after King issued a temporary restraining order to block an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which seeks to ban gender-affirming care for those under 19 years old. Trump’s order also withholds grant funding from health care providers that offer gender-affirming care to minors.

The restraining order was set to expire Friday at midnight.

The hearing sparked a large turnout at the federal courthouse in Seattle, prompting the court to open two overflow rooms to accommodate those who could not fit into King’s courtroom.

Standing outside of the courthouse, Brown thanked families and medical providers “who helped lend their voices to this effort, to demonstrate to the court that what the president did was unlawful.”

While King did not issue a ruling from the bench during Friday’s hearing, Brown said he felt “very confident based on the strength of the arguments that were made today, the questions from the bench, and what we’ve seen previously that we will continue to prevail in this matter.”

“We have a lot of work ahead, however. No matter what happens today, this is really a continuing saga to ensure that we have justice for people in this state, and all across this country,” Brown said. “And I’m so thankful for the work here, and the other states that have joined this effort, but we have more work ahead.”

During Friday’s hearing, King repeatedly interjected as lawyers for the Department of Justice sought to defend the executive order, peppering the federal government’s lawyers with questions that seemed to cast doubt on their arguments.

At one point, King questioned whether the Health Resources and Services Administration acted consistently with Trump’s executive order when the agency issued a February notice to grant recipients stating that effectively immediately, grant funds could not be used in a manner inconsistent with the order. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued the notice was later rescinded and that no grants were ultimately withheld when the notice was issued.

King further asked whether withdrawing the executive order could have caused more confusion.

During the hearing, King also asked if “not one, but two agencies misunderstood” the executive order “in the short time since the EO’s were issued.”

King also asked lawyers for the Justice Department to define gender dysphoria, a term repeatedly used in Trump’s executive order.

“Your honor, I’m not a medical provider” the lawyer responded, before adding the term is not defined in the executive order.

“From my understanding, your honor, that is a condition, that’s all I know,” the lawyer later added.

While in office, Trump has signed three other executive orders directed at transgender people, including directing the federal government to only recognize two genders and directing the federal government to “rescind all funds from educational programs” that allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s and girls sports.

On Wednesday, Washington joined 20 other states in supporting a legal challenge to a federal ban on transgender military personnel serving in the armed forces.

“The idea that you would prevent healthy, willing Americans who want to put on a uniform, and literally risk their life for America, I find personally offensive,” Brown said Friday. “Not only as the attorney general but as a former Army officer.”

Brown added that he was “really confident” the challenge would be successful.