Multistate lawsuit challenges ‘gender conditions’ tied to HHS funding

Credit: JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock

Jan 14, 2026 / 17:55 pm (CNA).

Twelve states filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Jan. 13, seeking to block what they call unlawful “gender conditions” imposed on billions of dollars in federal health, education, and research grants.

The plaintiff states — New York, Oregon, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington — challenge HHS’ requirement that grant recipients certify compliance with Title IX “including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168” effective Oct. 1, 2025.

The executive order, issued by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2025, and titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” defines sex as binary and immutable, grounded in reproductive biology, and directs agencies to reject interpretations recognizing gender identity.

The complaint alleges the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), exceed statutory authority, and infringe on constitutional protections.

The complaint states: “The Gender Conditions acknowledge, and require recipients to acknowledge, ‘that [the Title IX] certification reflects a change in the government’s position.’”

It argues this imposes a “novel and ambiguous funding condition” on over $300 billion in annual grants, making funding contingent on adopting the EO’s definitions, which plaintiffs say exclude transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals.

Recipients must certify compliance, according to the complaint, with violations risking funding termination and liability under the False Claims Act or criminal statutes.

The complaint alleges HHS bypassed notice-and-comment rulemaking, treating the conditions as a legislative rule altering Title IX. They claim this reverses prior policy recognizing gender identity protections consistent with existing case law and earlier HHS guidance.

The plaintiffs are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement and argue the conditions are arbitrary, exceed authority, lack unambiguous notice, and risk irreparable harm to state programs and transgender communities.