A federal judge ruled that the swift takedown of health information across several government webpages earlier this year was illegal and vacated agencies’ directives to do so.
The takedowns were carried out in late January to comply with an executive order from President Donald Trump redirecting the federal government’s stance on gender and sex policy. They were restored in part when a plaintiff medical organization, Doctors for America, was granted a temporary restraining order after successfully arguing that the sudden removals impeded their ability to provide time-sensitive care and were likely unlawful.
That relief was limited to specific webpages outlined in their complaint—which were accompanied by a notice that the restored material “does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it”—and in February the temporary restraining order was allowed to expire as the case progressed and officials conducted a “rolling review” of the webpages’ content.
Among the removed pages removed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its subagencies were those related to the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System, HIV data and recruiting underrepresented populations in clinical studies.
In an order filed Thursday, U.S. District Judge John Bates gave a more substantial win to the plaintiffs. He described the case as an example of “government officials acting first and thinking later,” writing that HHS and the Office of Personnel and Management, which had issued the memo directing webpage takedowns, had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and in contrary of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
“When the President issues an executive order, an agency’s exercise of discretion in implementing the order is cabined by the agency’s statutory obligations, including those imposed by the APA,” the judge wrote. “Because the agencies failed to adhere to those obligations here, the Court will vacate their directives.”
The court-ordered remedy is limited to the injuries demonstrated by the plaintiffs. That scope covers all webpages and datasets removed or modified in response to OPM’s memo and HHS’ guidance on the executive order, including those agencies included in their review.
A broader request to enjoin HHS from “further enforcing a policy requiring removal of all outward facing media, including webpages and datasets, in whole or in part, that the agencies identify as promoting ‘gender ideology” was denied, the judge wrote, as the government could go “back to the drawing board” to create a removal policy that doesn’t violate the APA.
The Trump administration had argued that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would threaten its ability to choose “what to say and what not to say.” Bates disagreed, writing in the order that the government is still “free to say what it wants, including about ‘gender ideology.’ But in taking action, it must abide by the bounds of authority and the procedures that Congress has prescribed, through the APA and otherwise. And the government failed to do so here.”
Doctors for America, in a celebratory release, said the decision was a “reminder” that the executive branch is bound by standing law.
“It is heartening to see that the court agrees with doctors, researchers, and patients that the government cannot unlawfully and without explanation remove crucial health information and datasets,” Reshma Ramachandran, M.D., a member of the group’s board of directors, said in the release. “With this ruling, we can provide care for our patients and protect public health based on evidence, rather than ideology.”
The administration has not addressed Thursday’s ruling, but could still appeal the ruling. Trump and other officials have previously railed against judicial decisions that pump the brakes on policy goals, and in late June celebrated a Supreme Court ruling that limited individual judges’ use of sweeping universal injunctions.