A federal judge in Oregon has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from pulling sexual education funding over curricula mentioning diverse gender identities.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken issued the preliminary injunction Monday as part of a lawsuit filed against the Health and Human Services Department by 16 states and the District of Columbia, which argued that pulling such money violated the separation of powers and federal law.
The complaint, filed last month, says the department is attempting to force the states to “rewrite sexual health curricula to erase entire categories of students." It describes the action as “the latest attempt from the current administration to target and harm transgender and gender-diverse youth.” The administration said in court filings that Health and Human Services has the authority to impose conditions for receiving funding grants.
Aiken wrote that the department “provides no evidence that it made factual findings or considered the statutory objectives and express requirements, the relevant data, the applicable anti-sex-discrimination statutes and its own regulations.” The judge added that the department also “fails to show that the new grant conditions are reasonable.”
The department did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment, but said in a previous statement after the complaint was filed that it was “committed to its mission of removing radical gender and DEI ideology from federal programs,” referring to initiatives focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose state co-led the lawsuit with Oregon and Washington, welcomed the ruling and said he was “pleased to have protected funding for important health education programs.”
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, his administration has sought to recognize people as only male or female.
Health Department went after 2 programs
The health department wants to prohibit the inclusion of what it describes as “gender ideology” in lessons funded by the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program. The federal grants are used to teach about abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
The plaintiff states said the grant conditions the department is seeking to impose violate federal law, the separation of powers and Congress’ spending power. They also argued that losing the money would harm state programs by making them less effective in providing sex ed, including to youth at high risk of becoming pregnant or contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
The termination of money under the two federal grant programs could result in a loss of at least $35 million to the plaintiff states, according to the complaint.
In court filings, the administration said agencies have the authority to impose grant terms and argued that claims against the federal government over contracts, including grants, should be heard by a different court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In April, the health department asked the plaintiff states to share curricula and materials used for lessons funded by the PREP grant, according to the complaint. In a letter, the department said it was conducting a “medical accuracy review.”
In August, the department issued new conditions prohibiting grant recipients from “including gender ideology in any program or service that is funded with this award.” That month, it warned states that they had 60 days to change lessons or lose their PREP grants; California was warned previously, and its $12 million grant was stripped Aug. 21.
At the heart of some of the legal debate in the case is the definition of “medically accurate.” Under federal law, curricula under the two programs must be “medically accurate and complete."
“The agency’s restriction on ‘gender ideology’ ensures that federal funds support curricula rooted in biological and medical science rather than in contested sociopolitical theories regarding gender identity,” the administration said in court filings.
The plaintiff states argued their programs are medically accurate and submitted written declarations from health experts such as Kate Millington, a pediatric endocrinologist and associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University.
“Stating that gender is binary and that other non-binary gender identities do not exist is not consistent with the medical and scientific understanding of gender identity,” Millington said.
In court filings, Minnesota officials shared examples of materials that Health and Human Services flagged for removal, such as curricula mentioning different pronouns and how some people identify with a gender that is different than their biological sex.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown previously said the department threatened to cancel PREP grants if his state didn’t remove wording from a high school curriculum that says: “People of all sexual orientations and gender identities need to know how to prevent pregnancy and STIs, either for themselves or to help a friend.”
The other plaintiffs are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. All plaintiff states have Democratic governors.
