Federal court blocks Trump administration order on gender-affirming care for youth

Keith Ellison, Attorney General
Keith Ellison, Attorney General
0Comments

Attorney General Keith Ellison and a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia secured a federal court ruling on March 19 that blocks an attempt by the Trump Administration to restrict healthcare providers from offering gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria.

The case is significant because it addresses whether the federal government can override state standards for medical care, particularly regarding access to gender-affirming treatments. The court’s decision vacates a declaration issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., which threatened hospitals and clinics providing such care with exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs.

“Gender-affirming care is healthcare, and healthcare decisions should be left up to doctors, their patients, and if the patient is younger, their parents or guardians,” said Attorney General Ellison. “States are responsible for licensing and regulating the medical profession, and professional associations like the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and others like them, establish standards of medical care based on evidence-based research. The federal government should not be part of that equation, and there’s no room in Minnesota doctor’s offices for Donald Trump, RFK Jr., and other politicians that want to dictate what healthcare we can and cannot receive. I am pleased to have prevailed in my lawsuit to protect essential healthcare services that allows transgender individuals to be themselves and live with the same dignity that we all deserve.”

Ellison and his colleagues filed their lawsuit on December 23, 2025. They argued that Secretary Kennedy’s declaration was unlawful because it attempted to change medical standards without following required notice-and-comment procedures under federal law. The declaration also claimed certain forms of gender-affirming care were unsafe or ineffective—a claim disputed by major medical organizations—and threatened penalties against providers who continued offering these services.

Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington State, Wisconsin as well as the governor of Pennsylvania joined Ellison in challenging the federal action.

The broader impact of this ruling may influence how future administrations approach state authority over medical practice standards versus federal oversight—especially concerning sensitive issues like transgender health care.



Related

Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson

Minnesota Client Security Board seeks new member to address lawyer dishonesty claims

The Minnesota Judicial Branch is inviting applications for a seat on the Client Security Board. This group reviews compensation claims from clients affected by lawyer misconduct. Interested attorneys must apply before May 8.

Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson

Minnesota Judicial Branch seeks submissions for Senior QA Analyst by April 22, 2026

The Minnesota Judicial Branch has opened a request for submissions from approved vendors for a Senior QA Analyst role. Proposals are due by April 22, with key dates set for questions and responses before then. The initiative reflects ongoing efforts toward transparency and statewide service.

Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson

Minnesota Judicial Branch seeks public comment on appellate procedure rule changes

The Minnesota Judicial Branch has opened a public comment period for proposed changes to appellate procedure rules. Residents can share their views before amendments are finalized. The move supports transparency and fairness in Minnesota’s judicial process.

Trending

The Weekly Newsletter

Sign-up for the Weekly Newsletter from Minnesota Courts Daily.