On Friday, February 14th, 2025, US Judge Lauren King issued from the bench a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that blocks the EO banning affirming healthcare for trans youth and criminalizing parents and providers nationwide for fourteen days.
I was at the US Courthouse in Seattle (in the overflow room next to the courtroom) where a standing room only crowd listened to our checks and balances at work. The hearing lasted just under an hour, including a short recess for Judge King to consider the decision. Only Judge King and counsel for Plaintiffs, the States of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota, and counsel for Defendants, the Department of Justice spoke. Judge King gave each side 20 minutes to present their arguments.
First, Plaintiffs counsel gave impassioned and detailed arguments on how the EO was unconstitutional twice over, discriminatory, and already causing harm. The arguments for the EO's unconstitutionality were that the President cannot condition or revoke funding that Congress has already authorized and cannot interfere in how States regulate healthcare for their citizens. As evidence of discrimination, the States submitted the last 10 years of congressional funding authorizations showing a complete absence of any conditions on funding for gender-affirming care. As evidence of harm, the States submitted declarations from 100 gender diverse youth, their parents/guardians, and healthcare providers. Counsel emphasized repeatedly how providers like Seattle Childrens Hospital had already cancelled scheduled appointments and procedures in its nationally recognized Gender Clinic in the two weeks since the EO was issued.
Then, Defendant's Counsel offered one thin argument that the EO was valid under the President's Article II Constitutional authority and repeatedly claimed "it's too soon to know how federal agencies will follow the EO" (paraphrase). Other than a single ~20-page brief on these two points, Counsel submitted no other evidence in support of the EO.
The judge dismantled the EO and the DOJ attorney with a series of basic Y/N questions she could not answer (both counsels and Judge are all women). Counsel sounded confused, stumbled verbally, paused for long periods, and offered up a variety of responses such as, "Could you repeat the question?", "I don't know", "I'm not prepared to answer that today" and "We only got the EO two weeks ago..."
The judge issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the bench on the same arguments Plaintiff's counsel offered: unconstitutional 2x, discriminatory, and current harm. The TRO blocks the EO in nationwide for 2 weeks. A follow-up hearing on the 28th will focus on extending the TRO or replacing it with a permanent injunction.
Outside after, WA AG Nick Brown expressed gratitude for his team and all plaintiffs, and said "healthcare providers should get back to work" with confidence. He also specifically expressed gratitude for the 100 youth, guardians, and providers who gave written declarations of harm. "Thank you for letting us tell your story." He added (paraphrased) "You're speaking up and showing up" referring to the crowd, "helps us advocate for everyone against this administration".
My key observation:
EOs get huge airplay on TV and online, and they're immediately awful and chilling. But in a court of law the DOJ attorney had nothing, was literally speechless, when the judge asked basic Y/N questions. Guy next to me checked his watch during one exchange and the silence was 16 seconds before the DOJ counsel said, "I'm not prepared to answer that question". Judge immediately replied "You should have prepared."
Seattle Times had the story online within the hour: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/judge-in-seattle-blocks-trump-order-on-youth-gender-affirming-care
I'll be at the follow up hearing on the 28th. Find me on @BlueSky: @alexmdunne.me. if you want to meet up for that.