A federal judge has ruled against a Biden-era rule that aimed to expand protections against discrimination in healthcare based on gender identity. U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. made this decision on Thursday, siding with Tennessee and 14 other states that challenged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule.
The judge stated that the HHS went beyond its legal authority by interpreting Title IX, which was enacted in 1972, to include gender identity. He emphasized that Congress originally focused on biological sex when it created Title IX, which aimed to address discrimination in education, particularly for women.
The rule in question was introduced by the Biden administration on May 6, 2024. Despite a change in leadership, the states involved in the lawsuit expressed concern that the rule could still be enforced against them. Lawyers representing the Trump administration’s HHS argued that there was no reason for the states to fear federal action, given Trump’s efforts to roll back policies related to transgender issues.
Judge Guirola noted that the rule posed a real threat of enforcement, which could impact state health benefit exchanges and Medicaid and Medicare recipients. He explained that the rule could have forced hospitals to provide transgender medical procedures and compromised the ability to maintain sex-segregated spaces.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the ruling, stating it upheld constitutional limits on federal power. He argued that the Biden administration’s rule would have imposed radical gender ideology on healthcare systems across the country and forced states to fund transgender procedures through Medicaid.
The lawsuit included support from Republican attorneys general from several states, including Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. The ruling reflects ongoing tensions between state and federal policies regarding gender identity and healthcare, particularly in the context of the political landscape surrounding these issues.
As the legal battle continues, the ruling is seen as a significant step in defining the scope of federal authority in matters of healthcare and discrimination.
