Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com
Legal Challenges Emerge Against Trump’s Executive Orders Impacting Transgender Rights
Two executive orders from former President Donald Trump aimed at limiting rights for transgender and nonbinary individuals are facing legal scrutiny, as lawsuits were filed on Friday.
A group of transgender individuals has initiated a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boston contesting an order that halted the ability to modify gender markers on passports. This order also eliminated the use of the “X” marker, which many nonbinary people rely on. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the plaintiffs argue that the sudden policy shift last month violated the required 60-day notice and comment period and constitutes discrimination based on sex and, in some instances, transgender status.
The executive order in question was signed on Trump’s first day back in office and asserted that the government would recognize only biological sex as fixed and immutable, a stance that conflicts with opinions held by major medical organizations like the American Medical Association.
Another Lawsuit Targets Funding Cuts for Gender-Affirming Care
In a separate legal action, three Democratic states have sued the Trump administration over an order aimed at banning federal funding for gender-affirming health care for transgender individuals under 19. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown has filed the federal lawsuit in the Western District of Washington, with the attorneys general of Oregon and Minnesota joining him as plaintiffs alongside three medical professionals. This complaint emphasizes that the executive order discriminates against transgender youth.
Last month, Trump issued an executive order mandating that federally administered insurance programs, including Medicaid and TRICARE for military families, no longer cover gender-affirming treatments. The order further instructs the Department of Justice to take legal action and pursue legislation against such care.
In some regions, Medicaid programs currently provide gender-affirming treatment. However, the new directive raises concerns that this could change, affecting hospitals and educational institutions receiving federal funds for delivering such services.
Brown expressed concern over the impact of the order, stating, “That order poses an immediate threat to young people all across Washington state, and to the medical professionals in Washington who provide much-needed health care.”
The recent legal developments follow a preceding lawsuit filed by families with transgender or nonbinary children in a Baltimore federal court earlier in the week. As the legal battles unfold, some healthcare providers have paused gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Meanwhile, officials in New York have indicated that preventing access to these services would contravene state law.
Broader Context and Additional Executive Actions
In addition to the health care directives, Trump has implemented executive orders that could restrict transgender service members in the military and impose new regulations related to how educational institutions address gender in curricula. Recently, an executive order was signed to bar transgender athletes from competing in female sports categories.
Legal challenges related to the military service order and policies regarding the incarceration of transgender women in men’s facilities have already emerged, with the likelihood of more lawsuits to come concerning these contentious issues.
Research indicates that a very small proportion—less than 0.1%—of adolescents receive gender-affirming healthcare, which can include puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries; however, the latter is infrequent among minors.
As society has begun to recognize transgender individuals more openly, there has been significant resistance. At least 26 states have enacted laws that limit or prohibit gender-affirming care for minors. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Tennessee’s ban regarding this care last year but has yet to issue a ruling on its constitutionality.
Source
www.cbsnews.com