The Trump administration will not be held in contempt after it canceled a research grant at Seattle Children’s, a federal judge has decided.
Although Judge Lauren King found the National Institutes of Health’s interpretation of her orders “unreasonable and self-serving,” there isn’t enough evidence to hold the Trump administration in contempt, she wrote. The grant supported a study tasked with developing an online tool for health education for trans and gender diverse youth.
The decision is the latest finding in the ongoing case playing out in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington. The case will attempt to determine whether President Donald Trump’s January executive order to halt federal funding for pediatric gender-affirming care around the country will stand.
Washington state, along with Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado, is suing the Trump administration over the order, charging the funding halt is unconstitutional. King issued a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit two weeks ago, extending a temporary block on the Trump order until the case ends, or until it’s overruled by a higher court.
King’s actions should have prohibited the Trump administration from pausing federal support for gender-affirming care for minors, including revoking the NIH grant to Children’s, which for years has worked to “innovate gender-affirming care interventions benefitting the sexual, physical and mental health of transgender youth,” state Attorney General Nick Brown’s office argued in a motion filed in early March.
More on the Trump administration
Trump, Putin to talk about ceasefire; Zelenskyy skeptical
Trump set to release JFK files with no redactions
It was war at the U.S. Institute of Peace when Musk team arrived
Keep track: Trump executive orders, plus legal challenges in WA
Our collected stories about the president and executive branch
In the motion, the state asked King to penalize the Trump administration. On Monday, King decided otherwise.
“A mere possibility that an action violates a court order is not enough to establish contempt; Plaintiffs must instead provide clear and convincing evidence,” King wrote. “Here, they have not done so.”
It’s still unclear whether the NIH did, in fact, revoke Children’s grant because of Trump’s order, and if the grant can be defined as involving gender-affirming care, she added.
When King issued the Feb. 28 preliminary injunction, she said she sees the president’s order to stop federal funding for care as “blatantly” discriminating against trans youth. Brown’s lawsuit argues the Trump order is unconstitutional for three reasons, including that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by singling out trans people for mistreatment and discrimination.
Brown also asserts the order violates the 10th Amendment by attempting to regulate state medical practices, and constitutional separation of powers by taking over Congress’ spending abilities.
According to the state’s motion on March 6, the NIH sent two letters to Children’s in late February and early March — after King issued the temporary restraining order — and said the grant would be terminated because “‘transgender issues’ are inconsistent with ‘biological realities’ and studying transgender health does not have value.” The second letter, sent March 4 following the preliminary injunction, doubled down on the termination notice and stripped Children’s of more than $200,000, according to the motion.
There’s “no doubt” the grant cancellation violated court blocks on the executive order, the state said.
The Trump administration pushed back last week, arguing the grant was related to research, not patient care, and therefore not included in services protected by the preliminary injunction.
“Research into an online, interactive sexual education tool does not provide gender-affirming care,” Trump’s response says. “Research and education are not care.”
While King ultimately decided the issue does not rise to the level of contempt, she agreed with Brown’s office that the Trump administration’s interpretation of her orders was “deliberately ignorant.” It’s common for research studies to involve patient care, and her preliminary injunction made it clear “gender-affirming care” is much broader than pharmaceutical and surgical services, she said.
While gender-affirming medical care can include hormone therapy and surgical procedures, gender-affirming care providers say this type of care also comprises mental health and social support, among other practices.
King also approved the state’s request for expedited discovery, and ordered the Trump administration to notify Children’s and other parties of this ruling by Thursday.
However, she stopped short of directly ordering the Trump administration to restore funding to Children’s. Her decision also does not hold that cutting the funding was contrary to prior court orders.
In a statement Tuesday, Brown’s office said it plans to begin the discovery process shortly, which is when parties exchange details about evidence and other information, to “get to the bottom of why NIH cut funding for research.”
The state might also “renew its motion for contempt if the federal government does not start following the Court’s orders and restore the cut funding,” the statement said.
A Children’s spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday that grants help “fuel research that improves pediatric health and saves lives.” The hospital did not immediately respond to follow-up questions about recent changes in funding.
“We will continue to monitor this situation and other federal actions that could impact funding or our ability to provide care,” the statement said.
Elise Takahama: 206-464-2241 or etakahama@seattletimes.com.