Preliminary Injunction Blocking DEI and Gender Affirming Portions of Trump Executive Orders

On June 9, 2025, in San Francisco A.I.D.S. Foundation, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Federal District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining President Trump’s enforcement of Executive Order No. 14168 “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”, Executive Order No. 14151 “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI3 Programs and Preferencing” and Executive Order No. 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (the “Executive Orders” or “the Orders”). 

With respect to the funding provisions of the Executive Orders, Judge Tigar found that the Orders reflected an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services relating to DEI and transgender individuals:

"While the Executive Order requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the Constitution. And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous. It further cannot do so in such a vague manner that all federal grantees and contractors are left to wonder what activities or expression they can engage in without risking the funding on which they depend. Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations. This loss not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces Plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Equity Termination Provision, Gender Termination Provision, and Gender Promotion Provision against them."

In issuing his decision, Judge Tigar concluded that the deprivation of funding for these programs and services does not serve a legitimate purpose to justify intrusion on protected speech and will cause irreparable harm to patients. Conversely, Judge Tigar did not find justification to extend the preliminary injunction to the Executive Orders’ certification requirements because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the government would use the certification in a manner that violated anti-discrimination laws. Please note that prior preliminary injunctions relating to the Executive Orders have been granted in Illinois and Maryland. See, Chi. Women in Trades v. Trump, No. 25-cv-2005 (MFK), 2025 WL 1114466 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2025) (“CWIT II”) and National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, No. 1-25-cv-00333 (ABA), 2025 WL 573764, (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025).

Although federal funding is likely to continue for now, providers can expect the federal government to request data and information regarding providers' gender affirming healthcare services and DEI initiatives.

As new developments arise, we will continue to update you. In the meantime, please contact one of the lawyers in Shipman’s Health Law practice group if you have questions about this ever-changing legal landscape.