Did Washington State file a lawsuit against the federal government that had to do with transgender surgeries
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Washington state, led by Attorney General Nick Brown, filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Trump’s January 2025 executive order that sought to block federal funding to medical institutions providing gender‑affirming care to people under 19; the suit was filed as a multistate action joined by Oregon, Minnesota (and later Colorado in subsequent briefs), and includes three physician plaintiffs representing minors and their interests [1] [2] [3]. Washington obtained a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction from a federal judge who said the order “blatantly discriminated against trans youth,” while the administration has defended the order as within presidential authority and argued that no federal grants had yet been withheld [4] [5] [3].
1. The filing and the parties: a multistate legal challenge
Washington’s Attorney General announced the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 7, 2025, naming the presidential executive order that would halt federal grants to hospitals and medical schools providing puberty blockers, hormone therapy and certain surgeries for people under 19 as the target of the lawsuit; Oregon and Minnesota joined, and three individual physicians joined as plaintiffs, some filing anonymously to protect patients [1] [2] [6].
2. The legal claims Washington pressed: constitutional overreach and discrimination
The complaint argues the order violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal‑protection guarantees by singling out transgender youth for discriminatory treatment and contends the president cannot unilaterally criminalize or regulate medical practice reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment — claims Washington’s public materials and press statements emphasize as central to the suit [1] [4] [3].
3. Courts moved quickly: temporary relief and continued hearings
A federal judge granted Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order that halted the administration from acting on the most disruptive aspects of the order, describing the directive as discriminatory; the litigation progressed to a preliminary‑injunction phase and the judge later extended an injunction preserving access to gender‑affirming care while the case proceeds [4] [5] [3].
4. Real‑world consequences and contested facts cited in filings
Plaintiffs and allied providers said the order prompted institutions such as Seattle Children’s to postpone gender‑affirming surgeries for minors and warned of broad downstream harms to mental health and medical research funding — the complaint also quantifies federal grant exposure for institutions like UW Medicine and Seattle Children’s to underscore economic and public‑health effects [2] [7] [5]. The administration’s lawyers told the court the president was acting within constitutional authority and noted that, at the time of argument, no federal grants had actually been withheld, framing parts of the injury claim as premature [5].
5. Competing narratives and parallel litigation around the order
Washington’s filings characterize the order as “cruel and baseless” and say it redefines standard pediatric endocrine care as “chemical mutilation,” while the executive order itself frames some gender‑affirming interventions for minors as harmful and subject to federal restriction — that competing framing is the heart of both the policy fight and the legal dispute, and it has prompted related suits from civil‑rights groups such as ACLU and Lambda Legal in other jurisdictions [8] [9] [10].
Conclusion: a clear yes, with litigation still unresolved
Washington did file a federal lawsuit against the federal government focused specifically on the executive order restricting funding for gender‑affirming care for minors, the suit is part of a multistate challenge that has secured preliminary court orders in Washington’s favor, and the case remains an active, contested federal litigation where both constitutional theory and competing factual narratives about harms and administrative power are being litigated [1] [4] [3] [5].