Texas Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Federal Transgender Health Mandate

A Judge of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Saturday issued a preliminary injunction against a federal mandate intended to protect transgender people, ruling that the federal health rule violates existing law.

The injunction granted by United States District Judge Reed O'Connor, is in response to a lawsuit filed by Texas and four other states, on behalf of religious hospital - Franciscan Alliance, in August.

During the trial, the plaintiffs argued that a federal regulation prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in certain health programs would force medical doctors to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions and abortions, even though it is contrary to their religious beliefs or medical judgment.

 The plaintiffs also claimed that they could be required to perform gender transition procedures on children, according to Texas Tribune. They prayed to the court to stop the federal government from enforcing the regulation.

However, transgender rights activists have debunk the claims that the health rule prevents doctors from using sound medical judgment. They argued that instead it clarifies that health care providers cannot deny services or insurance to someone only because that person is transgender.

The court ruled on Saturday against the federal government, the judge indicated that a preliminary injunction was appropriate as the federal health mandate violates the Administrative Procedure Act - which governs how federal agencies issue regulations. It also likely violates federal religious freedom protections for the plaintiffs that are private entities.

The health rule offers federal protections against discrimination based on sex extend to gender identity. It applies to health care providers, hospitals and doctors that accept federal dollars and insurance plans offered through the federal market place.

The plaintiffs claimed that the federal government is redefining the term "sex" to prevent decades of settled precedent and impose new obligations on health care providers. O'Connor agreed with the plaintiffs, saying the federal government had "revised" discrimination based on sex.

The judge also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the new rule imposes a substantial burden on private healthcare providers' religious exercise as it does not include a blanket exemption for religiously affiliated healthcare organizations.

However, the rule does not indicate that the healthcare providers could claim exemptions under existing federal religious freedom laws. O'Connor sided with opponents in issuing the preliminary injunction, that the private healthcare providers had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the federal health rule violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, according to The Rivard Report.

This is not the first time O'Connor has ruled in favor of Texas in recent months. He also sided with Texas in a separate case in August where he stopped the Obama administration from enforcing guidelines that were aimed at expanding restroom access for transgender students across the country.

He ruled that schools must treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex so as to comply with federal nondiscrimination statutes.