In Ninth Circuit argument, Washington defends gender-affirming care against unconstitutional attacks

The Attorney General's office argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today against two executive orders that threaten to end federal funding to medical institutions providing gender-affirming care.

Attorney General Nick Brown filed suit against portions of these executive orders in February 2025, and quickly won a preliminary injunction blocking them from taking effect. Gender-affirming care remains legal and protected in the state of Washington.

After losing the preliminary injunction motion, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The AG's office argued their case in front of that court today.

"This administration has attacked transgender Americans with a breathtaking cruelty and a disdain for Washington state law and our Constitution," Brown said. "Fortunately, we have repeatedly won in court and prevented these dangerous executive orders from taking effect. We are confident that the courts will continue to side with us and the Constitution."

"The executive orders we are challenging in this case are profoundly harmful, hateful, and unconstitutional," said Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell, who argued the case.

The state is joined in the lawsuit by the States of Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado. Three individual doctors also joined as plaintiffs in the case, bringing claims on their own behalf and on behalf of the minors for whom they provide care.

The states argued that the orders violate the 5th Amendment's equal protection guarantee by singling out transgender individuals for mistreatment and discrimination.

Additionally, Congress has already authorized research and education funding for medical institutions in Washington state, and the president cannot unilaterally overrule congressional spending decisions under separation of powers principles.

In granting Washington's preliminary injunction motion, the district court agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to show that the challenged executive orders violate equal protection and the separation of powers.

An exceptional team of attorneys and professional staff at the Attorney General's Office have worked on this case, including Attorneys Will McGinty, Tera Heintz, Cristina Sepe, Cindy Alexander, Todd Bowers, May Che, Spencer Coates, Alexia Diorio, Lauryn Fraas, Teri Healy, Andrew Hughes, Neal Luna, Emily Nelson, Mitchell Riese, Sarah Smith-Levy, Raina Wagner, and Lucy Wolf; Paralegals Victoria Johnson, Leena Vanderwood, Jessica Buswell, Ali Hollenbeck, Diane Hoosier, Connor Hopkins, Tally Locke, Alicia Nicole Stensland, Christine Truong, Jennah Williams, Jamie Wuco, and Logan Young; and Investigators Rebecca Pawul, Tony Perkins, Alma Poletti, Jennifer Sievert, and Jennifer Treppa.