Federal judge blocks Trump administration's rollback of LGBTQ health care protections

The rule would have taken effect Tuesday.

The judge’s ruling staying the repeal of the 2016 definition of discrimination on the basis of sex and enjoining the defendants from enforcing the repeal came from a “practical concern,” he wrote.

Senior U.S. District Judge Frederic Block of the Eastern District of New York on Friday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from putting into effect a new rule that would have ended nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people seeking health care.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized the rule on June 12, three days before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

HHS acknowledged that the case would have “ramifications,” Block noted in his 26-page order.

Related: Civil rights win for LGBTQ employees: Implications for employers

“It must also have known that a decision would be handed down before the end of the Supreme Court’s term,” Block wrote. “It then had an (admittedly brief) opportunity to re-evaluate its proposed rules after the case was decided contrary to its expectations.”

Instead of letting the Bostock ruling inform the new rule, Block wrote, HHS “did nothing.”

U.S. District Judge Frederic Block/courtesy photo

“The timing might even suggest to a cynic that the agency pushed ahead specifically to avoid having to address an adverse decision,” he wrote. “But whether by design or bureaucratic inertia, the fact remains that HHS finalized the 2020 Rules without addressing the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock. This makes it likely that plaintiffs will succeed on their claim that the rules are arbitrary and capricious.”

The Human Rights Campaign and attorneys from Baker & Hostetler filed suit in the Eastern District on June 26, representing two transgender women in need of health care who live in New York.

Both women have “frequently avoided seeking urgently needed health care for fear that the various forms of mistreatment and discrimination they have suffered on account of their gender identity will repeat themselves,” their attorneys wrote.

In summer 2016, during the final months of the Obama administration, HHS finalized a set of rules prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex stereotypes” or gender identity. A legal challenge was soon filed in the Northern District of Texas, where a judge enjoined enforcement of the gender identity section of the rules. President Donald Trump’s inauguration came before any potential appeal, Block wrote in his order.

Block’s ruling staying the repeal of the 2016 definition of discrimination on the basis of sex and enjoining the defendants from enforcing the repeal came from a “practical concern,” he wrote. The rule would have taken effect Tuesday.

“When the Supreme Court announces a major decision, it seems a sensible thing to pause and reflect on the decision’s impact. … Since HHS has been unwilling to take that path voluntarily, the Court now imposes it,” he wrote.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign president Alphonso David described the ruling as a step in the right direction. The plaintiffs’ legal team will seek for the rule to be “permanently tossed out,” he said.

“We are pleased the Court recognized this irrational rule for what it is: discrimination, plain and simple,” he said. “LGBTQ Americans deserve the health care that they need without fear of mistreatment, harassment, or humiliation. This failed attempt to callously strip away non-discrimination health care protections is merely the latest in a long line of attacks against the transgender community from the Trump-Pence team. Today’s victory is a step in the right direction, and we at the Human Rights Campaign will continue to fight the administration’s attempts to dehumanize and stigmatize the LGBTQ community.”

A spokesman for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read more: