On Wednesday, a U.S. judge temporarily blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a new rule prohibiting gender identity discrimination in healthcare. The decision will stand while a lawsuit from 15 Republican-led states is heard.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finalized the rule in May, which expands the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination to include transgender individuals. It was scheduled to take effect on Friday.
The opposing states argue that the rule would require their Medicaid programs to cover treatments such as hormones and surgeries for transgender people, including minors. These states have passed laws banning such treatments, often called gender-affirming care, for minors. The rule applies to recipients of federal funds, including Medicaid programs, following executive orders from President Joe Biden in 2021 and 2022 aimed at protecting transgender people from discrimination.
Senior U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola in Gulfport, Mississippi, stated in his preliminary order on Wednesday that the Republican states are likely to succeed in their challenge. He said the administration overstepped its authority by interpreting “sex” in the federal law to include gender identity.
“Today a federal court said no to the Biden administration’s attempt to illegally force every healthcare provider in America to adopt the most extreme version of gender ideology,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who led the lawsuit alongside Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch. Georgia, Ohio, and Virginia are also among the states opposing the rule.
HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
“This ruling is not only morally wrong, it’s also bad policy,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for transgender rights. “Everyone deserves access to the medical care they need to be healthy and thrive.”
In a court filing, HHS argued that the states’ concerns were speculative and that the rule did not override doctors’ medical judgment. The department also stated that the states were not entitled to block the rule because they did not face any imminent enforcement.
