Key Updates
Summary
It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. It is the Administration’s position that sexes are not interchangeable and that “sex” is not a “synonym for and does not include the term ‘gender identity.’” When administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, every agency and all federal employees acting in an official capacity on behalf of their agency shall use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable federal policies and documents. The EO further defines “gender identity” as “an internal and subjective sense of self” and directs agencies to take steps to eradicate use of the term and to implement regulations, guidance, forms and communications to comply with this order.
Legal Challenges
| Date Complaint Filed | February 4, 2025 |
| Venue |
United States District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Summary |
Plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin Defendants (President Trump and various agencies and officials) from implementing or enforcing Section 3(g) of E.O. 14168 and E.O. 14187 and declare these provisions unconstitutional and unlawful. They argue that these executive orders are in excess of presidential authority, conflict with existing statutes, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, violate Substantive Due Process under the Fifth Amendment, and violate the Plaintiff’s freedom of speech under the First Amendment. |
| Related Cases |
| Date Complaint Filed | January 30, 2025 |
| Venue | United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Summary |
Plaintiff, Jane Doe, is seeking to enjoin Defendants (Acting Attorney General James R. McHenry and Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons William Lothrop) from implementing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168, which would result in her transfer from a federal prison for women to a men’s facility. Plaintiff alleges that this Executive Order violates her Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution as well as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Administrative Procedure Act. |
| Case Updates |
February 4, 2025: Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Defendant from reassigning Plaintiffs to a men’s facility and enjoined Defendants from implementing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168. |
| Related Cases |
|
| Date Complaint Filed | January 30, 2025 |
| Venue | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Summary |
Plaintiff, Maria Moe, is seeking to enjoin Defendants (President Trump and various agencies and officials) from implementing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168, which would result in her transfer from a low-security federal prison for women to a men’s facility. Plaintiff alleges that this Executive Order violates her Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution as well as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Administrative Procedure Act. |
| Case Updates |
February 7, 2025: The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the district in which Plaintiff is currently confined. This information is under seal. January 26, 2025: Judge George A. O’Toole entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Defendant from reassigning Plaintiff to a men’s facility. Arguments were made during a January 30, 2025 hearing and the matter was taken under advisement. |
| Related Cases |
|
| Date Complaint Filed | February 7, 2025 |
| Venue | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Summary |
Exec. Order No. 14168 directed the Secretary of State to change policies related to documents like passports to align with the Order’s definition of sex. Plaintiffs sue Defendants (President Trump and various agencies and officials) argue that the policy is unconstitutional and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the policy is unconstitutional and unlawful; preliminary and permanent injunctions stopping the policy from being implemented; and an order vacating agency actions already taken under the policy. |
| Related Cases |
|
| Date Complaint Filed | February 4, 2025 |
| Venue |
United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Summary |
On January 31, 2025, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services removed health-related data and other information from publicly-accessible websites in response to an Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) memorandum enforcing Executive Order 14168. Plaintiffs, suing various agencies on behalf of doctors and scientists who rely on the data, allege that the removal constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and fails to comply with notice requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. They seek declaratory judgments that the OPM memorandum is unlawful; injunctions on further removal of information from agency websites; notice of any further modifications to webpages; and restoration of previously publicly-available datasets. |
| Case Updates |
February 18, 2025: Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. February 11, 2025: The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. |
