Federal judge blocks Trump administration rule allowing healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals News
DarkoStojanovic / Pixabay
Federal judge blocks Trump administration rule allowing healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals

A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York has blocked a new rule by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would allow healthcare providers to discriminate against transgender individuals. The ruling was issued on Monday, one day before the rule was set to take effect.

In 2015, HHS proposed a new set of rules that defined discrimination “on the basis of sex” in Title IX to include discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, or gender identity.” These rules took effect on July 18, 2016.

In 2019, HHS proposed a new set of rules that repealed the 2016 definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex,” determining that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘sex’ under Title IX encompasses neither sexual orientation nor gender identity.” The new rules were to take effect on Tuesday.

On June 26, two transgender women filed suit, both of whom experienced discrimination because of their transgender status. They asked for the court to stay the rules’ effective date and to preliminarily enjoin HHS from enforcing them.

On Monday, Judge Frederic Block concluded that the rules were contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. In the Bostock opinion, the Supreme Court held that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” The district court also found that the HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

The plaintiffs established that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm because monetary damages “could hardly compensate plaintiffs for the detrimental effect of discrimination on their health and, perhaps, their lives.” When balancing equities and public interest, Block reached a similar conclusion.

The judge also found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. HHS acted because of a “fundamental disagreement” with the 2016 rules, and its position was “effectively rejected” by the Supreme Court through the Bostock ruling. The HHS had an opportunity to reevaluate its proposed rule after the case was decided. Because of this, the court found that it was likely that the plaintiffs will succeed on their claim.

Block granted a stay and a preliminary injunction to preclude the rules from becoming operative.

THIS DAY @ LAW

President Johnson signed law against burning draft cards

On August 31, 1965, President Johnson signed a law making the burning of draft cards a federal offense subject to a five-year prison sentence and $1000 fine. In response to the law and in protest of the war in Vietnam, the student-run National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam staged the first public burning of a draft card in the United States on October 15, 1965. The constitutionality of the federal law was upheld in 1968 by the US Supreme Court in US v. O'Brien.

Gdansk Agreement reached

On August 31, 1980, the communist government of Poland and labor leaders settled the Gdansk Agreement. The accord settled a summer of labor strikes at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland. With the Agreement, Poland became the first communist country to allow the creation of an independent labor union, which was called Solidarity. Solidarity then became the driving force that ended communism in Poland. Learn more about the history of Solidarity.