The judge blocks Trump’s orders to arrest funds for health providers for trans trans

Federal funding for hospitals across the country which provides gender transition treatments to people under 19 will remain in place under the decision of a federal judge in Baltimore on Tuesday.

The preliminary injunction published by judge Brendan A. Hurson, of the American district court of the Maryland district, blocks a Trump administration effort to retain funds from hospitals unless they keep providing transitional treatment between sexes to young transgender people.

A similar decision in a separate case had already blocked the administration plan but applied only four states. The new decision extends to all the States of the break on Trump’s efforts while the judicial case takes place.

Tuesday’s decision came in a case presented by six transgender people aged 12 to 18, as well as parents and advocacy groups. The complainants of the case, who live in Maryland, New York and the Massachusetts, said that their access to treatment was threatened by two of Mr. Trump’s decrees who seek to limit federal support for young young people.

One of the executive orders orders federal agencies to guarantee that funding for research or education does not support “gender ideology”, which it defines as the idea that “men can identify as and thus become women and vice versa”. The second order orders agencies specifically to retain the funds of medical suppliers who offer puberty blockers, hormonal therapies and surgeries for people under the age of 19 for gender transition purposes.

After Mr. Trump made the orders, several clinics canceled appointments, especially for the complainants in the case. Judge Hurson, appointed former president Joseph R. Biden Jr., had made a temporary ban order in February, concluding that Mr. Trump had probably exceeded his authority by ordering the federal agencies to retain the funds appropriate by the Congress. But the injunction published on Tuesday indicates that the government will have to overcome significant judicial disputes to carry out its plans. The judge also concluded that the complainants were likely to prevail over their allegations according to which the decrees violated the existing laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex, as well as the equal protection guarantees of the fifth amendment.