Bad News From The Courts

A southern judge just shot down our healthcare!

Not good...

Federal judge strikes Biden-era ban on transgender care discrimination

The Hill

by Nathaniel Weixel

10/23/25

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a former President Biden-era rule that extended federal health antidiscrimination protections to transgender health care. 

Judge Louis Guirola Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled in favor of a coalition of 15 GOP-led states that sued over the rule, which broadened sex discrimination by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics in certain health programs and activities.

The Department of Health and Human Services “exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender identity discrimination,” Guirola ruled. 

Isn't it amazing that the judge totally ignored a number of  Supreme Court cases... Price Waterhouse (1989), Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) He says that they were labor cases! The article goes on to say,

The decision is a significant loss for the transgender community, which is has faced a wave of state and federal policies and court decisions rolling back previously established rights.

[...]

The decision is a significant loss for the transgender community, which is has faced a wave of state and federal policies and court decisions rolling back previously established rights.   

The complaint centered on provisions in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which the Biden administration interpreted to bolster health care protections against discrimination for LGBTQ people.

Bloomberg Law writes,

Bostock’s analysis can’t be reasonably applied to Title IX, and doesn’t support a finding that denying health care “based on gender identity necessarily constitutes sex discrimination,” the judge said. For one, the top court didn’t intend its decision to apply to other statutes, and it later distinguished that case in United States v. Skrmetti. The later case is “instructive,” the judge said, because the provision at issue there, like the one here, denied care based on the medical diagnosis, not the patient’s sex.

However, the judges argument is full of holes! The KFF wrote about the Supreme Court legal ruling...

Just after the Administration published the final rule, the Supreme Court ruled that sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity in the employment context. Based on that decision, two federal courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking parts of the final rule: NY and DC courts blocked provisions excluding sex stereotyping from the definition of sex discrimination, and the DC court also blocked the religious freedom exemption. The NY court is now considering whether to block other provisions of the rule, and other lawsuits are pending.

So what this judge is saying is that the logic behind all the other rulings do not apply!