On Valentine's Day, Judge Lauren King of the US District Court's Western District of Washington passed a temporary restraining order following a hearing in the case of State of Washington et al. v. Trump et al., which resulted from the president's January 28 executive order limiting federal funding for gender-affirming care. The SGN previously reported on how the attorneys general of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota launched this suit request last week.

"I am so damn proud," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said during the press conference, adding how he will continue the fight for justice and youth.

At the hearing, by the plaintiffs brought up Trump's threats of prosecuting healthcare providers offering gender-affirming care. While this may not be legal, the threat is very real, since the president is directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal agencies to conduct illegal activities.

While the intent of Trump's order is to allegedly protect youth, it isn't limited to children and irreversible treatments — like puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones — and it doesn't cover similar or identical treatments for cisgender youth.

"This order is aimed at the erasure of Trans individuals... it blatantly discriminates against Trans youth," the plaintiffs' attorney said.

Brown noted how the DOJ was created to defend civil rights, and that he has a "great deal of sympathy for healthcare providers."

Questions with few answers
"All [Trump] has done is ask agencies to take appropriate next steps," said a member of the DOJ's senior counsel, including looking into existing grants and waiting to see how the executive order will be implemented. She admitted that she didn't know how the order would shake out and claimed that it was not ripe for a review.

"This order does not require the agency... to take any specific action to enforce the order against providers providing care as defined in Section 2," she said. "It merely... asks the DOJ to review enforcement under this particular statute and prioritize enforcement of that statute."

Judge King asked if Trump's executive order targets similar treatments for cisgender people, asking for an example. The defense went silent, and some audience members giggled, but this wasn't an anomaly, as the DOJ's representative had difficulty answering many of Judge King's questions and repeatedly went silent for a minute at a time before attempting to respond.

The judge said funding under the executive order would only be prohibited for individuals who do not identify as their assigned sex, prompting another pause from the defense.

"You're not answering my questions. I'm going to ask you to try to answer my questions. How would a medical provider know [how to align medical treatment that differs from an individual's assigned sex]?" Judge King asked.

The DOJ representative said that the defense was not prepared to answer that question today. Judge King called the order's text "impermissibly vague — medical providers have no idea on where to go because you can't read the text and provide various facts," she said.

The DOJ counsel responded, "I'm not prepared to parse how a medical provider would read these decisions, because I'm here to defend the lawfulness of this executive order."

Judge King asked where in the executive order medical providers should look to determine the sex of a person, and if treatment aligns with a different sex.

"Again, we need to see how this shakes out," the DOJ rep said.

Today's restraining order is valid for 14 days. Another hearing for this case will be scheduled in the near future.