Judge Vacates Kennedy Declaration on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
Summary
Judge Mustafa Kasubhai of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued an April 18, 2026 order granting summary judgment to 19 states and the District of Columbia, vacating the Kennedy Declaration in its entirety and issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The court found the declaration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Medicare Act by creating binding standards of care without notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeded HHS statutory authority by superseding professionally recognized medical standards, and conflicted with federally approved state Medicaid plans covering gender-affirming care.
About this source
JD Supra is the legal industry's open library where US law firms publish client alerts and regulatory analysis. The Healthcare section aggregates everything from partners covering CMS reimbursement, HIPAA enforcement, FDA compliance, healthcare M&A, fraud and abuse, payer-provider disputes, telehealth, and the fast-moving state regulation of healthcare AI. Around 250 alerts a month. Watch this if you run a hospital legal department, advise digital health startups, manage payer compliance, or track how state Medicaid agencies and HHS-OIG actually enforce the rules they publish. The signal-to-noise ratio is genuinely good because firms only publish when they have something concrete to say to their clients. GovPing pulls each alert with the firm name, author, and topic.
What changed
Judge Kasubhai granted summary judgment to 19 states and the District of Columbia on all counts, completely vacating the Kennedy Declaration and permanently enjoining HHS, its Secretary, and OIG from enforcing it or any materially similar policy against providers in the Plaintiff States. The court held the declaration was final agency action that required notice-and-comment rulemaking, HHS lacked authority to unilaterally dictate medical standards of care, and the policy conflicted with state Medicaid plans covering gender-affirming care. Healthcare providers and state Medicaid programs in the 20 plaintiff jurisdictions may continue providing gender-affirming care without federal enforcement risk under this specific policy.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
April 23, 2026
Federal Judge Issues Decision Thwarting the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Curtail Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
Brian Blais, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Joshua S. Levy, Julia Tempesta, Kevin Travaline Ropes & Gray LLP + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X ;) Embed
As discussed in our prior Alert, Judge Mustafa Kasubhai of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon heard summary judgment oral arguments on March 19, 2026 regarding a declaration issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (the “Kennedy Declaration”). On April 18, 2026, Judge Kasubhai issued his order and opinion, granting the motion for summary judgment filed by 19 states and the District of Columbia (“Plaintiff States”) and denying the motion to dismiss filed by Secretary Kennedy, HHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), and HHS (the “Defendants”).
In his April 18, 2026 opinion, Judge Kasubhai ruled in favor of the Plaintiff States on all counts. As a threshold matter, he determined that the Kennedy Declaration was “unquestionably” final agency action and ripe for adjudication. On the merits, Judge Kasubhai identified three independent bases for relief. First, he held that the Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Medicare Act because the Kennedy Declaration created a new legally binding standard of care without undergoing required notice and comment rulemaking. Second, HHS exceeded its statutory authority by purporting to dictate professionally recognized standards of medical care, expressly superseding state standards of care. Third, the Kennedy Declaration violated the terms of federally approved state Medicaid plans that cover gender-affirming care (GAC) and was therefore not in accordance with the law.
The Court then granted three forms of relief. First, it vacated the Kennedy Declaration in its entirety. Second, it issued a declaratory judgment that Defendants lack the authority to unilaterally establish standards of care that supersede professionally recognized standards of care for provision of GAC in the Plaintiff States. Third, the Court permanently enjoined Defendants, their officers, agents, services, and attorneys, including those at the Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG), “from initiating enforcement action, enforcing, implementing, giving intent to, or relying, in whole or in part, on the Kennedy Declaration—or any materially similar policy which supersedes or purports to supersede the professionally recognized standards of care for gender-affirming care that exist in the Plaintiff States—against any provider in the Plaintiff States.” Judge Kasubhai’s decision underscores the important role courts are playing in defining the balance of legal authority between the states and the federal government.
;) ;) Report
Related Posts
Latest Posts
- Inadvertent Fiduciaries? DOL Guidance Creates New ERISA Risks for Proxy Advisory Arrangements
- Federal Judge Issues Decision Thwarting the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Curtail Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
- Navigating the Section 101 Landscape: REGENXBIO v. Sarepta and Its Implications for Patent Eligibility
- ICI Investment Management Conference 2026 See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.
©
Ropes & Gray LLP
Written by:
Ropes & Gray LLP Contact + Follow Brian Blais + Follow Douglas Hallward-Driemeier + Follow Joshua S. Levy + Follow Julia Tempesta + Follow Kevin Travaline + Follow more less
PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA
- ✔ Increased readership
- ✔ Actionable analytics
- ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Published In:
Administrative Procedure Act + Follow Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) + Follow Federal Court Litigation + Follow Federal v State Law Application + Follow Gender Identity + Follow Judicial Authority + Follow Judicial Review + Follow Medicaid + Follow Medicare + Follow Motion for Summary Judgment + Follow Motion to Dismiss + Follow Notice and Comment + Follow OIG + Follow Permanent Injunctions + Follow Preemption + Follow Statutory Interpretation + Follow Transgender + Follow Trump Administration + Follow Vacated + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Conflict of Laws + Follow Health + Follow more less
Ropes & Gray LLP on:
"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide
Mentioned entities
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for JD Supra Healthcare
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Ropes & Gray.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when JD Supra Healthcare publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.