By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Judge Jon S. Tigar seemed skeptical of the Trump administration's arguments.
“To me, that sounds incredibly vague,” Judge Jon Tiger told Trump administration lawyers.
A federal judge in California expressed sharp skepticism Thursday as the Trump administration defended executive orders that LGBTQ+ advocates say censor speech and threaten life-saving services.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
In San Francisco A.I.D.S. Foundation v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar heard arguments from Lambda Legal and the Department of Justice over three executive orders targeting so-called “gender ideology” and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The plaintiffs, a coalition of nine LGBTQ+ and HIV-focused nonprofits, are asking a judge to issue an injunction to halt enforcement.
“To me, that sounds incredibly vague,” Tigar told DOJ attorney Pardis Gheibi, according toCourthouse News Service, after she declined to clearly define what counts as “gender ideology.” Under questioning, Gheibi admitted that asking a client their pronouns or providing all-gender restrooms could violate the orders if federally funded.
The lawsuit stems from a series of executive orders signed by President Donald Trump during his first week back in office this January. Among them was Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism,” which mandates that the federal government recognize only two sexes—male and female—and prohibits federal grantees from affirming transgender identities. Two additional orders dismantled DEI grant programs and barred federally funded entities from applying “equity-based” hiring, education, and health care practices. LGBTQ+ organizations immediately warned that the moves were designed to erase trans people from public life.
Related: San Francisco AIDS Foundation and other LGBTQ+ groups bring new lawsuit against anti-trans executive orders
Lambda Legal’s Camilla Taylor argued the orders violate the First Amendment by chilling protected speech and the Fifth Amendment by targeting transgender people. “Even if what plaintiffs are doing is promoting unlawful DEI activities, that is protected First Amendment activity—unless it rises to incitement,” she said, according to the Bay Area Reporter.
San Francisco AIDS Foundation CEO Dr. Tyler TerMeer toldThe Advocate earlier this year that the orders had created panic among clients, with some fearing the loss of housing, HRT, or HIV medications. “For us, the only option was to fight,” he said.
Tigar did not rule from the bench. “Nothing I say indicates how I will rule,” he said, per Courthouse News. A written decision is expected in the coming weeks.
