Trump-era policies are sparking a new court battle — with another familiar face

Lawyers for a coalition of medical groups on Tuesday urged a federal judge to block it The Trump administration effort to access data on children’s transgender practices, we argue that the FTC’s demand is unconstitutional and vindictive.

The case marks a major legal battle over the Trump administration’s investigation into the treatment of transgender children, with the FTC arguing that police could harm consumers while medical groups say the investigation is politically motivated and unconstitutional.

At issue in the lawsuits, filed by the Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is the FTC’s need to obtain information from groups about “the treatment of pediatric dysphoria.[s]” provide, according to the FTC, and that organizations engage in false advertising or unfair practices as part of the process.

FLORIDA FINALIZED FOR $233M OBAMACARE FRAUD THAT SHOWED HOMELESS, VICTIMS AT THE SOLUTION

The FTC in January launched an investigation into the medical groups, and issued a Civil Investigative Demand, or CID, that led to the lawsuit.

During Tuesday’s hearing, lawyers for the medical groups urged US District Judge James Boasberg to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC’s broad demand for information.

The plaintiffs argued that the FTC’s effort was not a legitimate consumer protection effort, but rather a political effort to end child sex reassignment procedures and retaliate against organizations for providing them.

“Unable to prevail in the hearings, the FTC has resorted to burdening the AAP with an inadequate and expensive investigation that is unconstitutional and outside the FTC’s statutory authority,” attorneys for the pediatricians’ group told the court.

Advocates for the Trump administration have strongly disputed that idea, however. They argue that the FTC has a responsibility to ensure that consumers are not misled — including in cases where medical procedures are administered to children.

Boasberg used the hearing to address concerns about the scope of the FTC’s broad demand, broad constitutional concerns, and the administration’s assertion that the court lacks review to fully consider the issue.

100 DAYS OF ORDERS, TRIALS AND THE ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND FACES TRIALS OF HIGHEST OFFICIALS IN COURT.

Protesters wave transgender pride flags outside the Supreme Court. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Justice Department attorney John Bailey said any concerns about the scope or limitations of the FTC’s action should be seen through the “administrative agency process” recognized by the Supreme Court.

“So the answer is no, should I destroy it or let it continue – that I have no power to reduce it?” Boasberg asked, clarifying.

“My response, respectfully, would be that you should let this go through the normal administrative process of the agency,” Bailey responded.

Boasberg ended up adjourning the court without his decision, although he indicated that he would take up the matter immediately.

COURT OF APPEALS BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN’S DOMESTIC FLIGHTS DOMESTIC ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

President Donald Trump speaks to the media after signing executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on April 23, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The hearing comes as Trump moves to limit gender reassignment procedures to minors in his second term.

Shortly after taking office last January, Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Surgery,” which ended federal support for transgender procedures on children. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new law to strip federal Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals that provide “sexual abstinence procedures” to children under the age of 18.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM

Concerns about regulations have caused many hospitals to close their transgender treatment programs for fear of losing federal funding.