A full federal appeals court has cleared Florida to resume a lawsuit accusing the American Academy of Pediatrics of misleading the public about the safety of gender-transition treatments for minors, pausing a lower court injunction that had blocked the case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled Wednesday that it would rehear Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s appeal with the court’s active judges sitting en banc — an unusual move that bypasses the standard three-judge panel — and that it was staying a preliminary injunction entered by U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois, according to the court’s order. Judge Kennelly, a Clinton appointee, ruled June 2 and formally entered the injunction June 8, finding Mr. Uthmeier’s Florida lawsuit was likely brought in bad faith to retaliate against the group’s advocacy.
Mr. Uthmeier sued the AAP, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society in Florida’s 19th Judicial Circuit Court in December, alleging the groups violated the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and its racketeering statute by promoting gender-transition procedures for minors as safe and reversible without adequate scientific support. He later added a Florida antitrust claim. The AAP, in turn, sued Mr. Uthmeier in Illinois federal court, arguing the state action was First Amendment retaliation.
A divided three-judge panel denied Mr. Uthmeier’s request to stay the injunction on June 22, concluding he had not made the required strong showing that he was likely to prevail on appeal or would suffer irreparable harm while the appeal proceeded. Judge Michael Scudder dissented, calling the decision “a grievous blow to federalism.” Indiana and 21 other states, joined by the Arizona Legislature, filed an amicus brief backing Mr. Uthmeier’s stay request.
The full court’s Wednesday order vacated that panel opinion and agreed to take up the case under a rarely invoked appellate rule permitting “initial hearing en banc.” Five judges — Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, John Lee, Doris Pryor and Nancy Maldonado — dissented from staying the injunction. Judge Lee, joined by Judges Jackson-Akiwumi, Pryor and Maldonado, separately dissented from the decision to hear the case en banc in the first place, warning the move could affect “future proceedings and the court as a whole”; Judge Hamilton did not join that separate dissent, per the order.
Mr. Uthmeier celebrated the ruling on social media, writing that the appeals court “saw right through” the district court’s attempt to block his case and declaring, “Accountability will proceed in Florida!”
The ruling does not resolve the underlying dispute. The 7th Circuit said it would set a new briefing schedule and oral-argument date by separate order.
This article was constructed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published by a member of The Washington Times’ AI News Desk team. The contents of this report are based solely on The Washington Times’ original reporting, wire services, and/or other sources cited within the report. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Steve Fink, Director of Artificial Intelligence, at sfink@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.
