Federal Judge Blocks Federal Government from Cutting Teen Sexual Health Education Programs Over Gender Identity

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction, halting the Trump administration’s directive to defund teen reproductive and sexual health education programs. The lawsuit, filed by 16 states and the District of Columbia, including Maryland, challenged the administration’s move to eliminate funding over language that affirms young people’s gender identities. The states argued that the administration was denying essential services to young people for political reasons, disregarding legal mandates.

The ruling is a significant victory for states that provide comprehensive sexual health education, which aims to reduce unintended pregnancies and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections. Maryland, for instance, receives nearly $950,000 in grant funding through the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). This funding is crucial for educating teenagers on healthy sexual behaviors and supports programs that serve over 1,400 Maryland youth annually. The injunction ensures that Maryland can continue its existing programming without being forced to alter its content to align with the federal directive. This directive, which sought to erase any reference to transgender status or gender identity, was seen as a violation of federal law and potentially harmful to the effectiveness of these programs, particularly in communities with high rates of new HIV diagnoses.

The legal challenge asserted that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) actions violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit contended that the grant programs established by Congress have clear statutory requirements that directly conflict with the Trump administration’s insistence on a fixed, binary understanding of gender. By demanding the exclusion of gender identity discussions, the administration was forcing states to adopt medically unsupported and incomplete program content, which contravenes federal law. The states argued that these conditions were arbitrary and capricious, and that the administration’s unilateral imposition of these requirements usurped Congress’s spending power and violated the separation of powers. The coalition challenging the directive included the attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

---