Read more at the Advocate.

President Donald Trump suffered a pair of legal setbacks Thursday after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the Federal Trade Commission from enforcing investigative demands against two of the nation’s most influential medical organizations involved in transgender health care guidance.

Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions to both the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society, temporarily halting FTC investigations that the groups argued were politically motivated and unconstitutional.

The FTC investigations began earlier this year amid the administration’s broader effort to target institutions connected to gender-affirming treatment for trans youth. The agency issued civil investigative demands, or CIDs, seeking years of internal records, communications, financial information, conference materials, and documents related to medical guidance on transgender care.

In separate lawsuits filed in D.C., WPATH and the Endocrine Society accused the administration of weaponizing federal investigative powers to intimidate organizations that support evidence-based medical care for transgender patients.

The complaints argued the FTC was not conducting ordinary consumer protection oversight, but instead attempting to chill scientific debate, suppress protected medical speech, and deter physicians and researchers from participating in discussions about health care for transgender people.

Boasberg appeared deeply skeptical of the administration’s motives in both rulings, repeatedly pointing to what he described as evidence of hostility toward the organizations and their views on clinical standards for gender dysphoria treatment.

In the WPATH ruling, Boasberg wrote that the record “strongly suggests that the CID was issued at least in part because of hostility toward WPATH’s viewpoint and advocacy regarding transgender care.”

The judge explicitly tied that conclusion to the administration’s broader conduct surrounding transgender health care. “This Court’s Opinion in the parallel suit brought by the Endocrine Society details the range and depth of animus displayed by the President and agency leadership toward gender-affirming care,” Boasberg wrote.

He went further, writing that “[t]he circumstantial evidence of animus towards WPATH overlaps significantly with the record in the Endocrine Society’s case,” particularly through what he described as a “pattern of litigation and information demands” alongside “articulated hostility towards proponents of gender-affirming care.”

In one of the ruling’s sharpest passages, Boasberg concluded that “[o]n this preliminary record, with extensive evidence of animus and wafer-thin justifications lacking evidentiary support, it finds that WPATH is likely to demonstrate a causal link between its protected speech and the FTC’s issuance of the CID.”

Boasberg also noted that administration officials had publicly attacked WPATH before the FTC investigation began, including statements accusing the organization of lacking “scientific integrity” and contributing to “blatant harm done to children.”

At another point, the judge wrote that the evidence supported an inference of “viewpoint-based animus” toward WPATH and its advocacy surrounding gender-affirming care.

The court additionally found evidence that the investigation had already chilled protected speech and association. According to the opinion, WPATH leaders testified that they had curtailed educational programming and altered internal communications due to fears of retaliation and disclosure of sensitive member information.

“WPATH welcomes the Court’s decision to grant our request for a preliminary injunction against this unlawful and retaliatory investigative demand by the FTC,” the organization said in a statement to The Advocate late Thursday. “We are hopeful that this preliminary injunction will prevent further harm to the First Amendment rights of WPATH and its members.”

“For more than 50 years, WPATH has been committed to developing guidelines informed by established scientific standards, expert consensus, and patient-centered values,” the organization added. “WPATH’s dedication to this mission and the patient population it serves remains unwavering.”

In the parallel Endocrine Society case, Boasberg similarly warned that the FTC’s actions threatened constitutionally protected scientific discourse and associational rights. He wrote that the record raised “serious concerns that the agency’s investigatory power is being used not to police commercial fraud, but to target disfavored speech and advocacy.”

The judge also emphasized the breadth of the FTC’s demands, which sought years’ worth of records related to publications, internal deliberations, and communications involving transgender care recommendations. Boasberg concluded that the organizations had shown evidence of “ongoing self-censorship and withdrawal from protected expressive activity” as a result of the investigations.

“The D.C. District Court ruling is an important victory that recognizes medical guidelines are a valued resource that allow doctors to support patients in making decisions about their care,” the Endocrine Society said in a statement to The Advocate on Friday. “This ruling sends a powerful message that government efforts to pressure the medical and scientific community to abandon evidence-based practices are not permissible.”

The statement continued, “In addition to affirming the Endocrine Society’s First Amendment right to speak freely on matters of public health, the court recognized the chilling effect the government’s actions have on the Society’s work and the harm to public interest. This decision is a helpful step in ensuring the Endocrine Society can continue to advance endocrine health and patient well-being by providing clinicians with medically sound, evidence-based information.”

The rulings arrive as federal courts increasingly scrutinize whether the administration’s policies targeting transgender people and transgender health care are rooted in evidence or animus.

In Talbott v. United States, the ongoing challenge to the administration’s transgender military ban in D.C. courts, Judge Ana Reyes previously wrote that the policy was “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” Reyes also criticized government arguments portraying transgender service members as inherently dishonest or unstable, describing aspects of the administration’s rhetoric as evidence of unadulterated animus.

Boasberg’s rulings are not final decisions on the merits of either case, but they temporarily block the FTC from enforcing the investigative demands while the lawsuits proceed.