Home / News + Politics / Nation / Trump administration sued for refusing to answer freedom of information requests about HHS’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination rules
Trump administration sued for refusing to answer freedom of information requests about HHS’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination rules
Lambda Legal believes outside groups may have influenced HHS officials to adopt anti-LGBTQ policies
Lambda Legal has sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over its refusal to release information and documents, including communications with outside organizations, relating to decisions about the ability of LGBTQ people to access health care services.
Lambda Legal previously filed three requests seeking such information under the Freedom of Information Act more than a year ago, hoping to find some discussion or justification for the Trump administration’s decision to suspend the publication and implementation of LGBTQ nondiscrimination rules and regulations.
Unfortunately, HHS has provided no records for any of Lambda Legal’s requests, prompting the LGBTQ legal advocacy organization to file suit in federal court. Additionally, the agency only partially responded to one of Lambda Legal’s FOIA requests, and did not respond to the other two at all.
“Since taking office, the Trump administration has sought to undermine the mission of the Department of Health and Human Services, and sought to promote discrimination against LGBTQ people in all spheres of life, particularly in health care,” Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, a senior staff attorney and health care strategist at Lambda Legal, said in a statement. “We deserve to know how and why they have made these decisions.”
One of the FOIA requests requested information on whether officials at HHS communicated with any one of nearly two dozen socially conservative think tanks or political organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation, and whether those communications influenced decisions on LGBTQ-related policies.
Another FOIA request asked for records belonging to, created by, addressed to, or sent to political appointees that mentioned, in whole or in part, discussed, referenced, or related to LGBTQ matters or people.
The third, a multi-part request, demanded records that mentioned or referred to HHS’s decision about whether to post, publish, or enforce any rule or regulation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex stereotypes, or transgender status against HHS employees, staff, contractors, or subcontractors, including the ability of LGBTQ individuals to access restrooms or other sex-designated facilities. That request also sought information about any decisions on rules or regulations prohibiting various forms of anti-LGBTQ discrimination in Medicare and Medicaid.
In December, after not hearing from HHS, Lambda Legal filed an administrative appeal, to which the department has also failed to respond.
The FOIA requests were prompted by reports that Trump administration appointees were overruling career staff and cancelling or delaying implementation of rules and initiatives dealing with reproductive health care and health care for LGBTQ people, including access to transition-related care.
Other reports claimed that HHS had worked with outside organizations to try and undermine existing nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people. Such actions included creating a new “Conscience and Religious Freedom” division within HHS to allow health care workers to refuse to perform procedures or provide certain types of health care if they have moral or religious objections to a person’s medical decisions — which has since been bolstered by a Trump executive order enumerating those “religious liberty” or “conscience protections.”
As part of its lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lambda Legal asks the court to compel HHS to provide responses to its FOIA requests, arguing that the agency has had sufficient time to find and share the information requested on communications related to LGBTQ health care. The organization also asks that HHS pay its attorney fees and other compensation for its work.
“Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy, and the Freedom of Information Act is a vital part of citizens’ ability to understand how the government works and hold politicians accountable,” Gonzalez-Pagan said. “HHS cannot be allowed to flout our laws, to devise discriminatory policies behind closed doors, and to work in the dark with outside organizations in order to promote discrimination against LGBTQ people.”
Donald Trump's ads attacking Kamala Harris for her support of gender-affirming care for transgender prisoners are ringing a bit hollow following a New York Times exposé that showed his own Justice Department held a very similar position.
Trump is not being widely called out for his hypocrisy, however. Most Democrats, save Harris, sidestep any mention of transgender issues -- appearing concerned that their support of transgender rights will hurt them among moderate and swing voters. Republicans, meanwhile, simply ignore all historical facts.
In his ads, Trump has lambasted Harris for supporting gender-affirming care for transgender inmates, including undocumented immigrants who are in custody, in an attempt to paint her as too liberal in the eyes of moderate and independent voters.
The first-of-its-kind lawsuit alleges that Dr. May Chi Lau illegally prescribed hormone treatments to 21 minors, in violation of a state ban on transition-related care.
In the first-of-its-kind lawsuit in the United States, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued a Dallas doctor, accusing her of violating Texas's law barring physicians from providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Paxton alleges that Dr. May Chi Lau, a specialist in adolescent medicine, prescribed and provided hormone treatments to 21 minors between October 2023 and August 2024 to assist the youth in transitioning genders.
Under the ban, which was passed last year and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in June after being challenged in a lawsuit, doctors are prohibited from providing puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy to minors and can have their license to practice medicine permanently revoked and be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a petition for divided argument in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the federal challenge to Tennessee's law prohibiting doctors from prescribing treatments for gender dysphoria to transgender youth.
The court previously agreed in June to take up the case, as well as its companion case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, during the 2024-2025 court session.
The outcome of the case will likely determine the fate of similar laws in 23 other states, where Republican lawmakers have sought to criminalize the provision of gender-affirming care, like puberty blockers or hormones, to transgender youth to help them transition and assuage their feelings of gender dysphoria.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.