DOJ v. Trans Kids’s Medical Care:

DOJ has escalated its attack on trans care for minors. Where could it be headed next?

As Rhode Island Hospital begins turning over documents to a far-right judge in Texas, a number of grand jury subpoenas have been issued and DOJ settled with one hospital.

Three weeks ago, on April 29, lawyers for Rhode Island Hospital responded to an email from a Justice Department lawyer in Washington, D.C., sent the day before, asking for a conference on next steps in addressing an outstanding administrative subpoena issued by DOJ to the hospital nearly a year earlier about its provision of gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The next day, DOJ shifted tactics without even initially telling the hospital — going to court across the country to try and get an order enforcing the subpoena.

At least seven challenges to the invasive subpoenas had previously resulted in federal court rulings quashing the subpoenas or, at least, the parts of the subpoenas seeking identifiable patient information. In the wake of those losses — and as Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche took over the Justice Department — the strategy, as Law Dork has covered, began to shift to more aggressive tactics on multiple fronts.

The change has had at least one tangible effect already with regards to Rhode Island Hospital.

Beginning Tuesday night, at least some records responsive to the administrative subpoena were sent to a far-right federal judge in Texas who on Monday ordered the hospital to provide the records to him — although, for now, not to DOJ — while the hospital appeals his earlier ruling that the records need to be turned over to DOJ.

Any action on that earlier ruling, however, would appear to conflict with a later ruling from a federal judge in Rhode Island quashing the subpoena in full and barring DOJ from receiving any such records from the hospital — although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit late Tuesday denied a request to take further action immediately to enforce that order.

This latest dispute, which has now involved four courts across the country, as well as related discussions in court filings and before a federal judge in Rhode Island, serve as a warning for transgender people, their allies, and the parents of trans kids about how aggressively the Trump administration is acting to advance President Donald Trump’s anti-trans policies and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s implementation of them — and where the administration could be going next in this attack.

That April 28 DOJ email to Rhode Island Hospital’s lawyers — in which David Gunn, a DOJ lawyer, referenced having been out of office for the past few weeks before asking for a conference to discuss the subpoena production — was a DOJ response to a February 4 email from lawyers from the hospital.

The hospital’s lawyer responded simply the next day: “We are happy to connect. Would Monday of next week work?”

The conference never happened because, on April 30, DOJ went to a friendly forum for them in the Northern District of Texas seeking to enforce the administrative subpoena, which, to be clear, was issued in D.C. to a Rhode Island entity. Going there meant the case had a good chance of and was, in fact, assigned to U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a far-right judge with a history of anti-LGBTQ rulings.

Within hours, and before the hospital even had a chance to file any response, O’Connor granted the request — ordering the hospital to turn over the records within two weeks.

Over the past three weeks, there have been daily developments — and often multiple developments — shining an alarming light on what is happening.

Grand jury subpoenas

In addition to the order to enforce the subpoena in the Northern District of Texas, one of the two other most significant other development was the news — acknowledged by NYU Langone Health in accordance with New York law on May 11 — that it had received a grand jury subpoena for similar records that was issued in the Northern District of Texas.

Ethan Womble is listed as the person who sought the grand jury subpoena. He is, as of last month, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Texas. (He was previously listed — as recently as February — as a trial attorney in the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, although that health care fraud work does appear to have been based out of Texas.)

Womble and Ryan Raybould, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, were the only two lawyers on the DOJ petition to enforce the Rhode Island Hospital subpoena. They are both former O’Connor clerks.

The grand jury subpoena — which does not require judicial approval — was received by NYU Langone on May 7 (although dated May 6), and the date for compliance is June 10.

There is also evidence that other grand jury subpoenas were issued. In addition to NYU Langone stating that it was “one of several institutions that received a grand jury subpoena,” Law Dork previously reported that DOJ’s decision to withdraw its appeal of one of its administrative subpoena losses — as to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) — came the same date that the NYU Langone grand jury subpoena was issued.

In a filing later on May 6 before the district court that had heard and granted the Philadelphia hospital’s initial request, the lawyers for CHOP were direct:

Just this morning, DOJ attorneys reached out to counsel for CHOP indicating that DOJ intended to dismiss its appeal, which has been proceeding in the Third Circuit since January and in which DOJ’s brief was due today. That development, along with DOJ’s unexplained effort to compel compliance by a Rhode Island hospital in the Northern District of Texas, suggest that DOJ may seek to end-run this Court’s jurisdiction over additional issues that arise involving the Subpoena.

Unlike the administrative subpoenas, which were challenged in the locations where the hospitals were located, challenges to the grand jury subpoena(s) would generally be in the Northern District of Texas — although lawyers will be looking for other paths.

It also should be noted that it is not yet clear what, if any, action beyond the issuance of the grand jury subpoenas has actually happened in the Northern District of Texas.

The Texas Children’s Hospital settlments

The grand jury subpoenas aren’t the only new development.

On May 15, DOJ announced it had reached a “resolution” with Texas Children’s Hospital in conjunction with a long-running investigation against the hospital by the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Although DOJ presented the development as “the first resolution secured under the Department’s ongoing national investigation into violations of federal law in connection with” provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, Texas Attorney General Paxton only mentioned DOJ in one sentence and instead stated, “After a years-long investigation by the Healthcare Program Enforcement Division, Attorney General Paxton has negotiated a historic settlement that will help protect Texans.“ DOJ does cite agreements reached by the hospital with both federal and Texas governments.

In addition to ending the provision of such care, Paxton’s news release stated that Texas Children’s Hospital has agreed to “the creation of the country’s first-ever Detransition Clinic” and “pay $10 million for billing Texas Medicaid for unallowable and illegal ‘gender-transition’ interventions, including by using false diagnosis codes.“

In the DOJ news release, which only quotes Main Justice senior officials from D.C., it noted, “These matters and the investigations into sex-rejecting procedures (sic) on minors are being led by the Justice Department’s Civil Division Enforcement and Affirmative Litigation Branch and Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section.”

There was no mention of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas — or any district in Texas, for that matter — but the fact that the news releases are about a Texas hospital, DOJ’s release referenced what appears to be the same investigation at issue in both the administrative and grand jury subpoenas, and Texas’s release referenced one of the topics raised by DOJ in defending its subpoenas as allegedly supporting its investigation (improper billing codes) should not be glossed over.

For its part, Texas Children’s Hospital, in a statement to Law Dork, sounded a significantly different note than DOJ and Paxton’s office:

Over the last three years, we have cooperated fully with the Texas Attorney General and Department of Justice, navigating an unconscionable campaign of mistruths and mischaracterizations related to gender affirming care. We produced over 5 million documents and conducted multiple internal and external investigations. These efforts have required significant staff time and financial resources to defend ourselves. All reviews and investigations continue to support the facts – we have been compliant with all laws.

Today, we made the difficult decision to settle with the Texas Attorney General and the Department of Justice, closing a chapter that has been wrought with falsehoods and distractions. To be clear – we are settling to protect our resources from endless and costly litigation. This settlement will allow us to redirect those precious resources to focus on the life-saving care and groundbreaking discoveries of our exceptional clinicians and scientists.

Nonetheless, if DOJ proceeds with a grand jury investigation in the Northern District of Texas, these settlements could quickly become very relevant to DOJ’s claims.

What happened with Rhode Island Hospital

All of which brings us back to Rhode Island Hospital.

After O’Connor issued his initial order three weeks ago Thursday, the Rhode Island Child Advocate — responsible for oversight of children under the care of Rhode Island’s youth services — sought to quash the subpoena in Rhode Island.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee who had initially been nominated during the Obama administration, was assigned the matter. She denied DOJ’s initial request to move the matter to O’Connor and set a quick timeline for consideration of the request.

The hospital, meanwhile, sought to stay O’Connor’s order — first before O’Connor and then at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Both were denied.) The hospital also joined the Rhode Island Child Advocate’s request, intervening and filing its own motion to quash the subpoena.

On May 12, McElroy held an explosive hearing — accusing DOJ of having misled the hospital; the court in Texas; as well as, potentially, the court in Rhode Island.

Highlighting the incredibly invasive plans potentially involved in DOJ’s effort, McElroy told the relatively new DOJ lawyer before her, Brantley Mayers, counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, “[I]t is ridiculous to say that you’re going to find 14- and 15-year-olds who are undergoing gender reassignment or gender treatment and question them about what was told to them by their doctor. How invasive is that?”

An amicus brief submitted by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund addressed the improper ways DOJ is employing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other “healthcare offenses” to attempt to justify this investigation, but every judge has, again, found the effort to be an “improper purpose” under the laws at issue — or, at the least, the patient-specific documents requested not to have been appropriately sought.

Regarding the timing of the filing in Texas to enforce the Rhode Island Hospital administrative subpoena in conjunction with the emails earlier that week, McElroy told Mayers:

I take a very negative view to playing fast and loose by telling people one thing and filing other things with the court, and then taking the position like, oh, well, we didn’t tell you, but we did tell you afterwards. That is dirty pool, in my opinion, and the Department of Justice have willfully done that in this case.

Mayers had joined DOJ in November 2025 after three clerkships and with virtually no prior practice experience, a fact highlighted by McElroy, who repeatedly suggested that she believed the new lawyer was set up to defend the actions without having hardly any actual knowledge of the underlying investigation.

Sitting at his side, however, was Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jordan Campbell, a more senior Texas lawyer who joined DOJ in June 2025 after having co-founded a law firm that states it is “proudly seeking justice for the detransitioner community nationwide.“

Specifically as to the grand jury subpoena, which was discussed because NYU Langone’s statement had come out the day before, McElroy warned:

[T]he problem I’m having here is that it’s pretty clear to me that this was shopped to Texas, that’s fine, you have the right to investigate wherever you want, but these indictments that come out of Texas, if they ever come, because every person has signed an affidavit in this court and is going to be before me to explain it if they don’t.

Mayers insisted there were reasons for the investigation being in the Northern District of Texas — and acknowledged part of the content of a secret declaration that was filed ex parte (meaning just with the judge) in DOJ’s opposition to Rhode Island Hospital’s request that O’Connor stay his order enforcing the subpoena.

This secret declaration from Lisa Hsiao, the acting director of the Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch — who has filed declarations in most if not all of DOJ’s efforts defending the administrative subpoenas and which have drawn questions previously — was later provided to McElroy as well. Of that, Mayers acknowledged:

[H]ere were many reasons why the investigation is being carried on in the Northern District of Texas. As the affidavit that you received yesterday ex parte indicates, there are potential targets, potential witnesses there.

The reference to “potential targets” of the investigation being in the Northern District of Texas appears to be a significant piece of information as that proceeds.

In any event, the next evening, on May 13, McElroy issued her ruling, quashing the administrative subpoena in full and blocking DOJ from receiving the requested documents. She also repeatedly questioned DOJ’s actions in the opinion, writing at one point that “the discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling.”

DOJ, however, did not let it go — appealing the order the next day and informing O’Connor of the ruling. O’Connor, on May 15, ordered an in-person hearing in Texas on May 18.

Following that hearing came the May 18 order from O’Connor, concluding that “RIH has also sought to circumvent the authority of this Court and the Fifth Circuit and attempted to collaterally attack the Enforcement Order“ and ordering the hospital to turn over to the court “all materials that it would have turned over to the Government in compliance with this Court’s Enforcement Order“ on the condition that the materials would be “secured and held in camera, inaccessible to the Government for the pendency of the appeals.“

Additionally, O’Connor — responding to his conclusion about the alleged circumvention — purported to bar Rhode Island Hospital from seeking relief from his order in any court aside from his court, the Fifth Circuit, or the U.S. Supreme Court and from “cooperat[ing] with others in seeking relief“ from his order.

The First Circuit

That led to one last effort to hold things off, with the Rhode Island Child Advocate filing a motion in the First Circuit — where DOJ had appealed McElroy’s order — on May 19 seeking an injunction ordering Rhode Island Hospital “not to produce patient-identifying information or protected health information” in response to the administrative subpoena “to any person or entity pending resolution of this appeal or until further order of this Court.”

DOJ opposed the request, and later highlighted the fact that, in Rhode Island Hospital’s notice about its production, “RIH represents that, ‘[t]o the extent that records RIH intends to produce contain any patient information, RIH will anonymize and de-identify this information.’“ DOJ stated that “RIH’s stated plan to anonymize any documents filed in the Northern District of Texas today further undercuts the Child Advocate’s claim of imminent irreparable harm.“

In a short order issued a few hours later, the First Circuit essentially agreed, denying Rhode Island Child Advocate’s request because, the court stated, “We detect no such irreparable injury.“

The panel consisted of Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Lara Montecalvo, both Biden appointees, and Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee who took the bench in 2025.

Notably, Dunlap issued a concurring opinion, highlighting “additional concerns regarding the request for an injunction pending appeal“ — including, he wrote, “serious questions about the merits of the district court’s decision.” This is contrary to the seven other federal judges to have ruled on the question and was an aside, but it is nonetheless notable coming from the one Republican appointee on the First Circuit.

The bigger problem, however, with the First Circuit’s ruling is what was missing.

The paragraph highlighted above seems to run counter to and with an almost blind ignorance to all that McElroy got on the record in her May 12 hearing.

This is a situation where DOJ has questionably, and without providing public evidence, claimed that it has moved an investigation to the Northern District of Texas, justifying invoking the court’s jurisdiction there to enforce an administrative subpoena issued many months before the investigation had a connection to the district and against an entity across the nation that had been in discussion with DOJ the day before the enforcement action was filed. Then, a far-right judge there granted the request sought by his former clerks and now has ordered the hospital to provide him with the information that every other judge has decided medical providers should not need to provide.

No awareness of that reality comes through in the First Circuit’s order. Although the caveats in the order do mean that renewed requests could follow and it certainly means nothing as to the hospital or Rhode Island Child Advocate’s chances on appeal in quashing the subpoena (Dunlap’s concurrence aside), the First Circuit’s presumption of regularity is particularly ill-suited here.

As McElroy wrote specifically in her order, quoting an Oregon colleague:

The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that “[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word—with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes—no longer holds.” United States v. Oregon, No. 6:25-CV-01666-MTK, 2026 WL 318402, at *11 (D. Or. Feb. 5, 2026). It is regrettable that this is now the case.

As DOJ continues with these escalations of its attacks on trans people — and the provision of medical care specifically — courts need to keep their eyes opened to the reality as McElroy saw and detailed it, not to the image of courts as they would wish things to be.

Law Dork covers LGBTQ legal developments in depth. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Eco-News

It was actually some Canadian-made little-kids’s science TV show on The Learning Channel (when it actually was!) that first got me acquainted with Dr. Suzuki, then I read more in a “The Nation” interview. I’m glad he’s still out here kickin’.

David Suzuki Turns 90, Says We’re All Screwed!

It’s not easy being green.

Andrew Fleming

Dr. David Takayoshi Suzuki — an author, environmental A-lister and original host of CBC’s long-running documentary series The Nature of Things — marked his 90th spin around the sun at a star-studded gala Friday night in Vancouver. Jane Fonda and Al Gore were among the VIPs who flew in to show the old tree-hugger some love and enjoy performances from Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Snotty Nose Rez Kids, and even a surprise set from Neil Young.

Dr. Suzuki may not be a household name outside of Canada and maybe Japan but he came in a solid fifth place in a big CBC contest back in the early aughts to name the best Canadian ever, ahead of the more problematic Don Cherry and Wayne Gretzky, the only other living finalists to make the top 10.

Imagine if Bill Nye the Science Guy and Sir David Attenborough had a baby and you’re on the right track. The hot ticket event was livestreamed for free but hasn’t yet been uploaded anywhere, presumably to cut down on the footprint from permanent data storage, so we may never know if he had anything interesting to say about attending a lavish celebration of his life’s work when it has widely fallen on deaf ears.

He was pretty blunt when asked about his hopes for the future in a recent interview with Piya Chattopadhyay where he said hunkering down in communities is our best shot at survival now that we’ve reached the point of no return:

For years I was told on The Nature of Things, “you can’t say that, that’s too depressing.” So I’ve been held back from telling the truth. And now, when the science has said “we have passed a tipping point, we cannot go back,” people are going “oh well, what the hell, it’s too late.” It’s true we are now headed for a catastrophic way and it’s unavoidable. The science is telling you that. So do you just throw up your hands? If you have children or grandchildren, you can’t do that. So you have to hunker down and say “it’s coming.” Because when the emergency comes, we don’t know what it will be. Government won’t be able to respond with the speed and the scale that you’re going to need so get your act together. The reality is the science says we’ve come to that point, and so I believe that the unit of survival is going to be your local community.

This is coming from a father of five who watched Justin Trudeau sign the Paris Climate Accords to limit the rise of global temperatures and then turn around to buy a new frickin pipeline two years later. And now the new prime minister has essentially declared war on the environment by tossing regulations aside to fast-track new projects because Donald J. Trump poses a more immediate threat to the country than Mother Nature does.

Mark Carney recently announced plans for a potential new bitumen pipeline from Alberta to somewhere in the Pacific, with construction expected to begin as early as September 2027 if they can find anyone to put build it. “This is Canada working, this is co-operative federalism, this is Canada building,” he told reporters at a press conference with Alberta preem Danielle Smith. “In effect, it creates an energy transition — all aspects of energy — but really sets the stage for an industrial transformation.”

We’re Wrong About the Rates of Trans People

I love Ethel and her way of presenting facts and reality. She points out that studies in high schools indicate that the rates of trans children are 3.+ and those questioning are 2.+. Plus she points out the reason more trans people are out is the same reason more gay kids came out in the 2000s, it was the left handed issue again. When being left handed became OK to admit more people admitted and openly lived as left handed. Despite everything, trans kids feel safer coming out in the US than ever before. Hugs.

Responding to bigoted claims of biblical morality

A Jenny Lawson That Was Just Disinterred From My Inbox!

Don’t begrudge yourself happiness, sweet friend.

Jenny Lawson (thebloggess)

Hello, lovely!

This is my last week of book tour for How To Be Okay When Nothing Is Okay and I have conflicting emotions because touring can be hard with anxiety and chronic illness, but it’s also so uplifting to see people in real life and remind myself that the work I do does make a difference even when my mind says otherwise. It can be so easy to listen to the lies that depression tells, and it helps me refill my cup in a way that I can’t explain.

I suspect that you also probably have no idea how much the work you do in your own life (including the work of just being human, kind, and yourself) makes ripples in fantastic ways you’ll never see, but never doubt that it does.

I drew a lot last week because I was in a depression and it helped, but my brain wouldn’t work enough to put together the words I wanted on the drawings so instead of showing you the three unfinished sketches that I’m still working on, here’s a drawing from the book that I’ve been reminding myself of during this depression:

“Don’t begrudge yourself happiness.”

Because there isn’t enough joy in life to just let it pass you by. When it arrives, celebrate it…enjoy it…don’t let guilt or the drudgery of life get in the way of grabbing joy and whimsy and relief whenever it comes and however it shows up. Because you deserve it.

And I do too.

And when this depression passes completely I want to be ready for it.

I super crazy love you,

~ Jenny

The No Labels Party, Also Free Suicide Prevention Training

Some news about No Labels from my state; what’s happening with parties in your state? And great news regarding suicide prevention efforts aimed at LGBTQ+. I bet my state isn’t the only one!

No Labels Kansas is no more as a political party, despite bizarre bid to hijack the organization

Party didn’t fulfill plan to nominate candidates for president, vice president

By: Tim Carpenter

TOPEKA — Demise of the No Labels Kansas political party was inevitable after it neglected to fulfill the organization’s central objective when formed in January 2024 to nominate candidates for U.S. president and vice president.

The failure of No Labels Kansas to field candidates for any type of statewide office or to win at least 1% of the total votes cast for that office in a general election meant the organization would eventually lose its standing in Kansas among the state’s five political parties. Instead of leaving Kansans to speculate when that might occur in 2026, No Labels Kansas secretary and treasurer Shane Mathis requested May 15 the termination of state recognition of the political party.

“Because No Labels Kansas declined to nominate candidates for those offices in 2024 and has no intention of doing so in the future, its central organizational purpose no longer exists,” Mathis said.

Secretary of State Scott Schwab complied Monday with the request and notified county election clerks and commissioners of state law requiring voter registration records be amended so 5,955 people registered with No Labels Kansas would be reclassified as unaffiliated.

In Kansas, the Republican Party dominates with 897,000 registered voters compared with the 575,000 unaffiliated and 495,000 Democratic Party registrants.

While founders of No Labels Kansas didn’t make a dent in Kansas elections, the existence of its organizational shell led a pair of longtime Republican operatives to attempt a hijacking of No Labels Kansas so it might be transformed into an organization with a broader mission that included nomination of candidates for state offices. (snip-MORE)

Kansas organization launches free suicide prevention training focused on LGBTQ+ community

By: Baya Burgess

TOPEKA — A Wichita organization created an online training program for suicide prevention and mental health education to improve the care that LGBTQ+ Kansans receive when reaching out to crisis resources, including the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

The organization, Center of Daring, focuses on inclusivity and leadership training. Its 10-part training program takes nine hours to complete and is available for free on the center’s website, according to an April 28 press release announcing the program.

“We believe this training series will fill a deep need here at a time when many LGBTQ+ Kansans don’t feel safe in our state,” said Liz Hamor, the Center of Daring founder, in the release.

Through learning activities, videos and surveys, the training covers trauma-informed intervention, intersectionality and promoting equity within a crisis response organization. The training was designed with input from LGBTQ+ residents and Kansas crisis care providers, according to the press release.

The 988 helpline is a mental health crisis resource available 24/7. It went nationwide in 2022. Kansas’ line received more than 34,000 calls, 12,000 texts and 9,000 chats in 2025, according to a state-mandated annual report.

The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is a free, confidential hotline available 24/7 for individuals in crisis or those looking to help someone else. To speak with a certified listener, call or text 988 or visit 988lifeline.org.

Behind & Present With Jenny Lawson

I am forever behind, but there is joy in that

Jenny Lawson (thebloggess)

Do you remember last month when everyone was so excited about Moon Joy as we watched Artemis II? I have a confession to make.

I did not watch it.

Perhaps a combination of my anxiety plus a little leftover trauma of watching in Challenger live in Elementary school? Regardless, I couldn’t enjoy it until I knew that they were safely back home, but then I did a deep dive and that is why I am forever experiencing pop-culture moments behind the rest of the world. It’s also why this week I decided to draw something that might have been more timely before, but I suspect you will forgive me.

It reminded me of how amazing space is…of exploration and joy…and of the idea that we are each an actual part of the magic of that universe, even when we feel that we are so tiny and unremarkable.

So this is just a reminder to you that you are truly made of stardust. Nearly all of the elements in your body where made in a star, and many have come through several supernovas. The actual iron in your body is from a star going supernova. So if today you are feeling small, remember that you are magic in astounding ways.

PS. I know I normally just talk art here but I thought maybe you’d want to see this. Yesterday I started fostering a feral rescue kitten to try to fill the kitty-sized hole in my heart right now and I’m pretty sure this tiny, nameless orange gentleman will not be leaving us because omg, y’all.

Word

And why judges should never be elected, but should be nominated by those who practice law, then confirmed by elected legislators and governors. All should be public so we the people know what and when it’s happening. When judges have to run for the bench, politics overtakes and minimizes law, tainting decisions.

Kansas Judge Eviscerates Anti-Trans “Experts” Jamie Reed, Chloe Cole, James Cantor; Blocks Care Ban

The judge found 349 individual facts supported the continued provision of gender-affirming care.

Erin Reed

Judge Carl Folsom III // Linkedin

This weekend, a Kansas judge issued a scathing 117-page rebuke of the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth—and in doing so, methodically dismantled the case against that care. In his ruling, Judge Carl Folsom III worked through the testimony of the state’s witnesses one by one, finding that its anti-transgender “experts”—routinely paraded by groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, SEGM, and Genspect—offered opinions built on “cherry-picked information, conjecture, and research taken out of context,” and granting their testimony little to no weight. He then laid out 349 individual findings of fact, drawn from scientific evidence and the testimony of credible medical experts, documenting the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care. He ultimately found that the ban likely violates the Kansas Constitution—which guarantees broader protections than its federal counterpart. That distinction matters enormously: because the ruling rests on state constitutional grounds, it is largely insulated from the U.S. Supreme Court and its decision in Skrmetti, which closed the federal courthouse door to these challenges but left the state one wide open.

“Allowing a transgender adolescent with gender dysphoria to experience their endogenous puberty when puberty blockers are medically indicated according to the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline is highly likely to result in irreversible physical changes that create enormous short- and long-term distress and gender dysphoria,” Folsom wrote. “Thus, there was substantial evidence that S.B. 63 not only fails to protect minors, but also endangers them, by prohibiting the use of GnRH agonists when medically indicated.”

Before weighing the evidence, the judge first had to determine who could credibly be considered an expert. Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach brought forward a litany of anti-trans witnesses familiar from litigation defending these bans. Among them was James Cantor, a Toronto psychologist who has built a career testifying for states defending care bans despite no clinical experience treating transgender minors—and who was once quietly dropped from a Florida Board of Medicine hearing after it emerged he had served on the advisory council of the Prostasia Foundation, a group that has worked to destigmatize pedophilia. Folsom wrote that Cantor “has not conducted any original scientific research on the efficacy or safety of gender dysphoria treatments,” and noted he is not licensed to treat anyone under 16 and has never diagnosed a minor with gender dysphoria. The judge then catalogued a record of self-contradiction: Cantor “stated that ‘peer-review is the line between acceptable and not’ but himself relied on non-peer reviewed sources,” cited systematic reviews while ignoring that “the authors of those reviews stated that their work should not be used to prevent the provision of gender-affirming medical care,” and “makes several statements which have no scientific support,” including that gender dysphoria might be a misdiagnosis of borderline personality disorder. “The Court gives Dr. Cantor’s testimony little weight,” Folsom concluded.

The judge turned next to Farr Curlin, a Duke University doctor and theologian who was an author of the Trump administration’s HHS report on pediatric gender dysphoria—a document authored anonymously by a roster of hate-group affiliates and career anti-trans activists, and which deadnames Christine Jorgensen, one of the first Americans to get gender affirming surgery. Curlin, Folsom noted, “is not a pediatrician, nor is he a psychiatrist or endocrinologist,” and “has never treated anyone for gender dysphoria.” Curlin testified that gender-affirming care is “ethically problematic”—but under questioning, the breadth of what Curlin considers unethical became clear. He believes that prescribing birth control for contraception is also “ethically problematic,” because “blocking the capacity for reproduction seems contrary to the purposes of health.” He believes in vitro fertilization is “ethically problematic” as well. He testified that when gender-affirming care reduces fertility, it “prevents the realization of the basic good of marriage, since sexual capacities make possible the one flesh union of marriage.” By his own admission, Folsom noted, Curlin’s views are “radically counter to current medical orthodoxy.” The judge found his opinions “appear motivated by his personal views as opposed to a methodology applicable in the field of medical ethics,” and gave his testimony “little-to-no weight.”

The judge also had pointed words for the state’s roster of prominent anti-trans activists. Chloe Cole, the country’s most prominent anti-trans detransitioner, testified about receiving care as a minor in California—but Folsom noted that Cole “admittedly did not receive care in Kansas,” and that the plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Angela Turpin testified the care Cole described “would not have occurred in Kansas” and would have been inconsistent with the clinical guidelines Kansas providers actually follow. Her testimony was given “less weight.” Corinna Cohn, another anti-trans detransitioner who has testified for care bans across the country and who has publicly denied that transgender people existed before 1939 or were victims of the Holocaust, did not appear at the hearing at all. The judge noted that Cohn’s affidavit described “care accessed as an adult” and treatment “in Wisconsin”—nothing to do with minors, or with Kansas—and gave it “little weight.” And then there was Jamie Reed, the self-styled “whistleblower” who built a national profile on lurid, largely unsubstantiated accusations against a St. Louis gender clinic and who has gone on Fox News to describe being transgender as a delusion. Reed also did not testify and could not be cross-examined. Folsom gave her affidavit “little weight,” and had scathing remarks towards her lack of expertise:

“The Court gives thus Jamie Reed’s affidavit little weight, given that she is not a medical provider or mental-health professional. In addition, her affidavit primarily addresses her experiences with a clinic operating outside of Kansas—thus, it does not rebut or refute the credible, uncontroverted testimony about clinical practice within the state of Kansas,” read the order.

Folsom then turned to set the record straight on the care banned by Kansas. Working through the testimony of the credible medical experts, he set out 349 separate numbered findings of fact, each documenting some component of what the science actually shows about gender-affirming care. Among them: that “the currently available body of medical research, as a whole, shows that gender-affirming medical care is effective at improving mental-health outcomes for adolescents with gender dysphoria,” supported by “over 20 scientific studies” finding the treatments “effective at alleviating gender dysphoria and improving a variety of mental-health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality.” Folsom found that “for many adolescents, gender-affirming medical care provides significant relief from gender dysphoria and decreases depression, anxiety, suicidality, and thoughts of self-harm.” On the question of regret, the talking point most relied upon by the law’s defenders, the court found, based on the Kansas clinic’s own long-term follow-up data, that 99.2% of patients who received gender-affirming care “continue to identify as transgender into adulthood,” and that of the remaining 0.8%, “most did not regret the medical treatment they received.”

Folsom reserved some of his sharpest fact-finding for the Cass Review and claims over European care. The state’s experts pointed to systematic reviews from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway as “proof” the science had turned. Folsom found otherwise. “None of these systematic reviews recommend categorically banning gender-affirming medical care for adolescents,” he wrote, and “the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Germany, and Norway have not categorically prohibited gender-affirming medical care for minors”—as Kansas had. On the Cass Review specifically, Folsom found that its authors “changed their methodology from the methodology they said they would use in their preregistration, which is a deviation from standard academic publishing practices designed to minimize bias,” and “used idiosyncratic standards in scoring and thus excluded studies that had made important contributions to the field.” Far from recommending a ban, the court found, the Cass Report “reaches conclusions that are similar to those in the Endocrine Society Guideline and WPATH Standards of Care” and “concludes that there are young people who absolutely benefit from gender-affirming care.” On Germany, the state had the facts backwards: Folsom found that “Germany’s recent guideline endorses the provision of gender-affirming medical care”—a reference to the 2025 guidelines from 26 medical organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the largest European medical consensus on transgender youth care ever produced.

The judge’s ruling rested on the Kansas constitution. Folsom found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that SB 63 violates the fundamental right of parents, guaranteed by Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, to make medical decisions for their children. Section 1, he wrote, quoting the Kansas Supreme Court, “protects the core right of personal autonomy—which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination” and “allows Kansans to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, their health, their family formation, and their family life.” Because SB 63 strips parents of that right, Folsom applied strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard in constitutional law, and found the state had failed to meet it. That reasoning was used recently before in Kansas politics for another issue. The same Section is what protects abortion rights in the state. In previous abortion-related decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court held that Section 1 secures “an inalienable natural right of personal autonomy”—language the court used to strike down abortion restrictions, and that Kansas voters chose to keep in 2022 when they rejected a constitutional amendment that would have stripped it away.

For now, gender-affirming care is legal again in Kansas. The injunction is temporary, blocking SB 63 while the case is litigated, and Attorney General Kris Kobach has said he will appeal, calling the ruling “a stark example of judicial activism.” But the appeal faces a structural problem. Because the decision rests entirely on the Kansas Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling in Skrmetti have no power to disturb it—a state’s highest court is the final word on its own constitution. And the Kansas Supreme Court, where the case is ultimately likely to land, has five of seven justices appointed by Democratic governors and has repeatedly upheld the same Section 1 personal-autonomy right that Folsom relied on here.

2 Pieces Regarding Transpeople’s Rights

I can’t get the entire article here; I think I used up all my NYFT freebies for life back in 2004. However, I got a blurb, and because it’s pertinent to our interests, I’m still posting the link for anyone who’d like to see the story. It’s surprising, as is the story after this one.

Kansas AG issues opinion exempting some state facilities from anti-trans bathroom law

By: Morgan Chilson

TOPEKA — A few spaces are exempt from Kansas’ new bathroom law that requires people to use the facilities in government buildings that match their sex assigned at birth, Attorney General Kris Kobach said in an opinion he released Wednesday.

Kobach’s opinion, which carries no legal authority, exempted some government spaces — such as skilled nursing rooms at the Kansas Office of Veterans’ Services — from complying with the bathroom law that went into effect in February.

He issued the opinion in response to an April letter from Justin Whitten, Gov. Laura Kelly’s chief counsel, who asked for clarification on defining “multiple-occupancy private spaces” and “facilities” as written in Senate Bill 244.

“This was a poorly written and ambiguous law, which is why the governor’s office sought an attorney general opinion,” said Olivia Taylor-Puckett, spokeswoman for Kelly. “The AG’s opinion provides new clarity on the more limited scope of SB 244 as inapplicable to places that are more ‘residential in character’ like a cabin or hospital room.”

The bill became law in February after passing through contentious legislative debate, including a veto from Kelly that was overturned. At the time, Kelly questioned vague language in the bill and how it would apply to some state facilities.

The law sets high fines for agencies that fail to comply and smaller fines escalating to class B misdemeanors for those who violate the law. Critics said the law doesn’t specifically address implementation, leaving agencies statewide struggling to determine what to do to comply.

In an April letter, Whitten asked Kobach to render an opinion on whether spaces like hospital rooms, prison cells and bedrooms in public buildings are considered “multiple-occupancy private spaces” under the law.

The letter asked for definition of “facilities,” and whether Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks cabins throughout the state and Kansas Office of Veterans’ Services nursing facility rooms must adhere to the law.

“SB 244 makes no distinction based on a ‘facility’s’ purpose and instead focuses on the existence of a mere possibility of whether an individual may be in a state of undress in front of another individual,” Whitten’s letter said.

Arguments that the hospital is the “facility” rather than the patient room are “untenable,” he said. The hospital building would fit under the law’s definition of a public building, while the room would be the private space, Whitten said.

“If your answer relies on finding an ambiguity in Senate Bill 244 with the term ‘facilities,’ we ask that you work with the Legislature in the 2027 session to clarify this ambiguity,” he said.

Kobach’s opinion

Citing a dictionary definition of “facility” and saying that “in the absence of a contrary definition, words in a statute should be given their ‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’ ” Kobach said neither the skilled nursing rooms or the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks rental cabins meet the definition of “facility,” which exempts them from the law.

Kobach said SB 244 listed examples of rooms the bill applies to.

“The debate surrounding SB 244 focused on the types of rooms listed in the statute — restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and shower rooms — and the risks to safety and privacy when individuals of one biological sex use facilities designated for individuals of the opposite biological sex,” his opinion said.

Kobach said the Legislature’s intent didn’t include stopping a married couple from sharing a nursing home or assisted living facility room or to prevent people in those facilities from receiving guests of the opposite sex.

Prison cells, however, more closely match the type of facilities addressed in the law, Kobach said, which means multiple-occupancy cells must only be shared by prisoners of the same sex.

Taylor-Puckett said attorney general opinions are generally given “persuasive but not binding weight in a courtroom.” She recommended that individuals and entities should consult with their attorney with regard to any decisions about complying with SB 244.

‘Poorly drafted’

Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he was glad to see some spaces exempted from the law but that the opinion reinforced what civil rights activists contended from the beginning: The vagueness of the law makes it difficult to enforce and understand.

“This uncertainty about whether people just living their lives are going to run afoul of this law, I think demonstrates both that the law was meant to terrorize and also that it’s poorly drafted,” he said.

Some Kansans and legislators objected to SB 244 being termed an “anti-trans” bill. But Seldin said the interpretation reinforces that it is a bill targeted at transgender and intersex people.

“These interpretations really continue to try to find ways to push transgender and intersex people out of public life, while making sure that people who aren’t transgender don’t feel any disruption whatsoever,” he said. “It does seem to very strongly suggest that this law was really targeted at transgender people and is not actually responsive to any concerns about safety or privacy.”

Seldin said any concerns about safety and privacy aren’t related to reality in Kansas.

Seldin is representing two Lawrence transgender men who are challenging the bathroom law in court, with the next hearing scheduled for Sept. 29 through Oct. 2. That will be an evidentiary hearing regarding the ACLU’s request for a temporary injunction of the law, Seldin said.

Your Weekly Birds: The Songs, The Cuteness … And A Bonus!

Mourning Warbler

Geothlypis philadelphia

Also Known As

Reinita Enlutada (Spanish)
Chipe Llorón (Spanish)

About

Though relatively common over much of its range, the Mourning Warbler is secretive and notoriously hard to observe. These birds mostly stay close to the ground in dense thickets and brush where they forage and nest. Outside of the breeding season, Mourning Warblers are also fairly quiet and can easily go unnoticed. As a result, very little is known of this bird’s life history outside of the breeding season. In fact, there are sizable gaps in our understanding of its breeding biology as well — for instance, no researchers have documented the courtship behavior of this species.

However, one thing we do know is that these birds are fairly particular about their habitat requirements. Mourning Warblers are reliant on thick, brushy second-growth forest, the result of big ecological disturbances, such as fire or major storms, that kill numerous trees and open up gaps in the canopy. Following such a disturbance, habitat becomes acceptable after about two or three years. After another seven or eight years, the forest will have grown back enough that Mourning Warblers will no longer use it. This means that breeding areas for this species are constantly shifting, as one forest regrows and a new opening is (hopefully) created elsewhere. Sometimes referred to as a “fugitive species,” Mourning Warbler populations are frequently “on the run,” fleeing the regenerating forest and searching for another suitable opening.

Fortunately, these birds are not terribly picky about exactly what kind of disturbance creates this ideal habitat. Drought, disease, insect outbreaks, and especially fire are natural disturbances that this species probably relied on historically. In the current day, large forest fires are far less common, but for the Mourning Warblers, human activities seem to work just as well. These birds are commonly found in old clearcuts, abandoned agricultural areas, along logging roads, and even mining and oil well sites. While these heavily disturbed areas do not benefit most species, the Mourning Warbler makes it work. (snip-see MORE here)