UNITED STATES — MARCH 4: President Donald Trump arrives to deliver his address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, March 4, 2025 (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images).
The Trump administration has violated multiple federal court orders in various jurisdictions related to transgender medical care and should be held in contempt, a motion filed Friday argues.
On Feb. 7, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and three medical school doctors sued the government to block implementation of two executive orders intended to ban federal support for gender-affirming medical care. Colorado quickly joined up as the fourth state plaintiff.
On Valentine’s Day, Joe Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Lauren King, sitting in Seattle, issued a bench ruling and a terse temporary restraining order pausing the anti-transgender policies. On Feb. 16, King elaborated on her reasoning in a memorandum opinion. Then, on Feb. 28, just as the restraining order was set to expire, King issued a preliminary injunction that will last until the case concludes at the district court level or unless the government receives a stay on appeal.
Now, the plaintiffs say the recent termination of funds to various hospitals violates both court orders — as well as a similar suite of injunctive relief granted by Maryland and Rhode Island federal courts.
“Less than a month after this litigation was filed, Defendants believe they have devised a way to skirt this Court’s authority and avoid complying with its injunctions,” the motion for contempt begins.
On March 4, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) revoked over $200,000 in grant funding from the Seattle Children’s Hospital, the motion alleges. On March 6, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a multimillion dollar defunding order that “appears to target at least five hospitals” in the four states, and which was sent directly to two such hospitals, according to the filing.
The agencies in question justified their rescission of those earlier-promised funds because they did not want to support transgender-related research or medical treatment, the motion alleges.
“[NIH] told Seattle Children’s Hospital that it was terminating the grant because ‘Transgender issues’ are inconsistent with ‘biological realities’ and studying transgender health does not have value,” the filing reads.
At first, the plaintiffs thought the cuts were “an honest mistake” and “alerted” the administration “to the problem,” the motion says.
In turn, an attorney for the government said the agency “terminated the grant” for the children’s hospital “based on its own authorities and NIH Grants Policy Statement,” according to the motion.
Then, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) began celebrating the cut on social media, media reports were written about the cut, and “leaked NIH documents” tied the cut to President Donald Trump‘s anti-transgender orders, according to the filing.
The planned HHS cuts — several times more severe; nationwide in scope — apparently caught the four states entirely off-guard.
“And somehow it gets worse,” the motion reads. “As Plaintiffs were finalizing this motion, HHS issued additional notices, including to hospitals in the Plaintiff States, threatening to strip up to $370 million in education grants from children’s hospitals nationwide based on the Denial-of-Care Order. Under Defendants’ stingy and self-serving reading of the Court’s injunctions they can cancel any grant they want to, as long as they don’t admit why they’re doing it.”
More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Earth-shaking, country-shaking proposition’: Judge scoffs at Trump administration’s claim on president’s ability to override Congress on foreign spending
The motion elaborates on the subterfuge argument, at length:
That is not how this works. Injunctions are not suggestions — they are binding orders of the Court. Defendants may not evade this Court’s orders through game-playing, and they may not harm Plaintiff States and their institutions that have already shown entitlement to preliminary relief. The Court should hold Defendants in contempt on shortened time, and should award Plaintiff State of Washington its fees in connection with this motion.
Moreover, the plaintiffs say, a federal judge in Maryland barred the administration from taking “any steps to implement, give effect to, or reinstate [the anti-transgender orders] under a different name.”
And, in the Rhode Island case, a federal judge broadly blocked spending freezes — including those targeting the NIH and HHS in relation to the administration’s anti-transgender policies.
Therefore, the plaintiffs argue, the upshot here is obvious.
“The court’s orders remain in effect,” the motion goes on. “And they plainly forbid HHS from implementing the Gender-Ideology Order to terminate pending grants. Defendants’ violation of a whole swatch of federal court orders nationwide is strong evidence of its contempt.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
With or without a contempt finding, the plaintiffs say the government’s conduct necessitates a quick resolution of the motion.
“Immediate review is necessary to relieve the chaos caused by HHS’ contemptuous actions,” the filing continues. “Further, expedited resolution is necessary to prevent harm to other medical researchers and institutions. Until this motion is resolved, Defendants will continue to illegally terminate medical research grants involving gender-affirming care or gender-identity development based on their own self-serving reading of this Court’s orders.”
The states say King should force the government into compliance with her extant court orders. They are also requesting attorneys’ fees.
