Filed Date: Feb. 7, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the constitutionality of President Trump’s January 28, 2025 Executive Order 14187 (EO 14187), titled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” that sought in the sections relevant to this case: (1) to prevent medical institutions from providing gender-affirming care to individuals under nineteen years old by conditioning federal funds on institutions' cessation of such care (Section 4 of EO 14187), and (2) to encourage criminal prosecution by insinuating that gender-affirming care—called “chemical and surgical mutilation” in the EO—is “female genital mutilation,” a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 116 (Section 8(a) of EO 14187). (To see the Clearinghouse's collection of legal challenges to trans-related actions by the second Trump Administration, click here.)
As filed on February 7, 2025, the original plaintiffs in this case were three states--Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon--and three physicians. (Colorado was later added as a plaintiff on February 19, 2025 through an amended complaint.) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against President Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Education (ED), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and the United States. (The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (USDT), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) were later added as defendants on February 19, 2025 through an amended complaint).
In the original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Section 4 of EO 14187 violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against transgender and gender-diverse people and violated the separation of powers by usurping Congress’s spending power. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that Section 8(a) violated the Tenth Amendment by exceeding executive authority. Represented by the Attorneys General of Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare Sections 4 and 8(a) of EO 14187 unconstitutional, unlawful, and unenforceable; to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting implementation and enforcement of Sections 4 and 8(a); and to hold an expedited hearing on further enjoinment of the defendants (whether through a preliminary injunction or an extended TRO). Accordingly, the plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a TRO on February 7, to temporarily stop implementation and enforcement of Sections 4 and 8(a) of EO 14187. The case was assigned to District Judge Lauren King.
On February 11, 2025, the defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a TRO. In support of the defendants', on the same day, Alabama (represented by their Attorney General and the Silent Majority Foundation) filed an amicus brief opposing the plaintiffs’ motion.
A few days later, on February 14, there was a hearing on the plaintiffs’ TRO motion. The court granted the TRO and set its expiration at 14 days from the date issued (unless the court extended it). The order prohibited the defendants “and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them who receives actual notice of [the] Order” from enforcing or implementing Section 4(a) or Section 8(a) in the plaintiff states, “to the extent that Section 8(a) purports to redefine ‘female genital mutilation’ under 18 U.S.C. § 116 as ‘chemical and surgical mutilation'.”
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 19, 2025. It added: (1) Colorado as a plaintiff; (2) additional U.S. agencies--USAID, USDT, DOT, and SBA--as defendants; (3) a claim against another Executive Order, EO 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” in which Trump denounced, and ordered federal agencies to denounce and defund, “gender ideology,” a term Trump used to refer to transgender identity and the fluidity of gender; and (4) a claim that EO 14187 and 14168 are unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because they authorize the defendant agencies total discretion in assessing whether federal funding is promoting “gender ideology” and deciding whether gender-affirming care is “chemical and surgical mutilation.”
In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs challenged Sections 3(e) and (g) of EO 14168, in particular. Section 3(e) ordered agencies to remove and cease “all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology;” to list only “male” and “female”—and never “gender identity”—on agency forms that collect information on sex; and to “take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” Section 3(g) reiterated that federal funds and grants may not be used “to promote gender ideology” and ordered agencies to assess grants for compliance. Regarding EO 14168, the plaintiffs asked the court for (1) a TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against implementation or enforcement of Sections 3(e) and (g), and (2) a declaration that Sections 3(e) and (g) are unconstitutional and unlawful.
On February 19, 2025, the same day the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, they also moved for a preliminary injunction. The court heard the motion on February 28, 2025, and issued an order granting a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 4 of EO 14187 and Sections 3(e) and (g) of EO 14168 in the four plaintiff states; the court denied a preliminary injunction against Section 8(a) of EO 14187 (because the plaintiffs lacked standing). The preliminary injunction, thus, prohibited the defendants and their “respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them who receives actual notice of [the] Order” from conditioning or withholding federal funds based on the recipient’s provision of gender-affirming care in the plaintiff states.
Regarding the court's February 28, 2025, decision to deny the preliminary injunction of Section 8(a) of EO 14187, they explained: “Section 8(a) directs the Attorney General to prioritize ‘enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation’ under 18 U.S.C. § 116. The plaintiffs contend that any prosecution under Section 116 for the provision of the gender-affirming care referenced in the first EO would be ‘baseless,’ and the defendants affirm that the EO does not expand the criminalized conduct under that statute;” thus, there was “no credible threat of prosecution.” (f.n. 1 of 02/28/2025 Order).
On March 6, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, asking the Court to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the Court's 14-day TRO issued February 14, 2025 and its preliminary injunction (PI) issued February 28, 2025. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the TRO and PI when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated grants to plaintiff state WA's Seattle Children's Hospital for gender-affirming care and HHS issued notices threatening to terminate as much as $370 million of education grants to children's hospitals nationally—including to children's hospitals in plaintiff states. In their motion for contempt, the plaintiffs asked the Court to hear the motion on shortened time, sought attorneys' fees, and requested an oral argument on the motion. The Court denied the plaintiffs' request to have their motion for contempt heard on shortened time based on a local rule in the Western District of Washington that abolished motions to shorten time. On March13, the defendants filed a response opposing the plaintiffs' motion for contempt, shortened time, and attorney's fees.
On March 17, 2025, in compliance with the court's order, the parties filed a joint status report. In the portion of the report stating their position, the plaintiffs requested a Rule 16(f) pretrial conference, noting that the defendants refused to provide a date that they would attend a 26(f) conference regarding discovery. In the portion of the report stating the defendants' position, the defendants argued that, because the Solicitor General authorized the defendants to appeal the district court's preliminary injunction, the district court should stay its proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. The defendants indicated their intention to file a motion for such a stay if the court did not issue one on its own. Further, the defendants proposed that the parties submit another joint status report no later than 14 days after conclusion of the appeal.
On March 17, 2025 the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and denied their motion for contempt and attorney's fees. Although the court held that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show contempt, the court found that the defendants unreasonably interpreted the term "gender-affirming care"—as used in the court's preliminary injunction—narrowly and self-servingly. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendants to "correct their unreasonable interpretation of the Court’s preliminary injunction by notifying all Defendants and agencies and their employees, contractors, and grantees of the following by no later than March 20, 2025," and file a copy of the notice with the court. The defendants filed a notice of compliance on March 20.
On March 18, 2025, the court set deadlines for the parties to have a rule 26(f) discovery conference, make initial disclosures, and submit a joint status report and discovery plan; those deadlines were March 31, April 14, and April 28, respectively.
On March 21, the defendants appealed the district court's February 28 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction and its March 17 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and Attorney’s Fees and Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery. The defendants brought the appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the case was assigned docket number 25-1922. After completing a mediation questionnaire on March 31, the defendants received a mediation order directing them to "email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential." On April 10, the case was released from mediation with a directive that "[c]ounsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions." On April 11, the appellate court granted an unopposed motion from the defendants for extended time to file their opening briefing, giving the defendants until May 21 to file their opening brief. However, on May 16, the court of appeals issued a stay on opening briefing until a decision was reached in United States v. Skrmetti, ordering the parties to file a status report seven days after the Supreme Court handed down a decision.
Also on March 21, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending their appeal of the preliminary injunction. The court granted the defendant's motion to stay on April 23, stating that the plaintiffs were unlikely to suffer harm as a result of the stay, since the court's preliminary injunction was already in force and providing the plaintiffs with their requested relief. Therefore, the court ordered a "limited stay" of the proceedings in the district court.
On March 28, 2025, the defendants filed a Notice of Reinstatement in the district court, stating that the NIH had reinstated a previously terminated research grant to Seattle Children’s Hospital, following the district court's March 13 order allowing expedited discovery into whether the termination violated a preliminary injunction. In the notice, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' requests for expedited discovery "are now moot." On June 16, the court agreed with the defendants, finding that since "Defendants reinstated the grant and are immune from the type of monetary sanctions Plaintiffs sought in their underlying motion for contempt, Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are moot."
On April 21, 2025, the defendants filed another Notice with the district court; this one stated that the CDC had terminated 17 grants on January 31, 2025, but had not de-obligated any funds as a result of the terminations. Additionally, the defendants claimed that on February 11, 2025, the CDC reinstated those grants via Notices of Award.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sylvia Al-Mateen (4/21/2025)
Jeremiah Price (6/25/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69620657/parties/state-of-washington-v-trump/
Alexander, Cynthia L (Washington)
Administration, National Aeronautics (Washington)
Affairs, United States (Washington)
Agriculture, United States (Washington)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (Washington)
Administration, National Aeronautics (Washington)
Affairs, United States (Washington)
Agriculture, United States (Washington)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (Washington)
Bombard, Robert C (Washington)
Commerce, United States (Washington)
Daniel, Christian (Washington)
Defense, United States (Washington)
Education, United States (Washington)
Energy, United States (Washington)
Foundation, National Science (Washington)
Intelligence, Office of (Washington)
Justice, United States (Washington)
Panchanathan, Sethuraman (Washington)
Bowdre, Alexander Barrett (Washington)
Chisholm, Barbara (Washington)
Divine, Jennifer S (Washington)
Fussell, Derrill J (Washington)
Hilaire, Abigail Jane (Washington)
Kemper, Keith Allen (Washington)
Lannin, Cortlin Hall (Washington)
Murray, Matthew J (Washington)
Neuman, Elena Medina (Washington)
Schaffer-Neitz, Aaron (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69620657/state-of-washington-v-trump/
Last updated Aug. 22, 2025, 2:57 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Transgender Healthcare Access Cases
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Transgender Rights)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 7, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Four states (Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado) and three physicians.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States (Donald Trump) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Justice (DOJ) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Agriculture (USDA) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Commerce (DOC) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Defense (DoD) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Education (ED) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Energy (DOE) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (- United States (national) -), Federal
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (- United States (national) -), Federal
National Science Foundation (NSF) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of the Treasury (- United States (national) -), Federal
Department of Transportation (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Small Business Administration (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Benefits (Source):
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
LGBTQ+: