Home / News + Politics / Nation / Trump administration sued for refusing to answer freedom of information requests about HHS’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination rules
Trump administration sued for refusing to answer freedom of information requests about HHS’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination rules
Lambda Legal believes outside groups may have influenced HHS officials to adopt anti-LGBTQ policies
Lambda Legal has sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over its refusal to release information and documents, including communications with outside organizations, relating to decisions about the ability of LGBTQ people to access health care services.
Lambda Legal previously filed three requests seeking such information under the Freedom of Information Act more than a year ago, hoping to find some discussion or justification for the Trump administration’s decision to suspend the publication and implementation of LGBTQ nondiscrimination rules and regulations.
Unfortunately, HHS has provided no records for any of Lambda Legal’s requests, prompting the LGBTQ legal advocacy organization to file suit in federal court. Additionally, the agency only partially responded to one of Lambda Legal’s FOIA requests, and did not respond to the other two at all.
“Since taking office, the Trump administration has sought to undermine the mission of the Department of Health and Human Services, and sought to promote discrimination against LGBTQ people in all spheres of life, particularly in health care,” Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, a senior staff attorney and health care strategist at Lambda Legal, said in a statement. “We deserve to know how and why they have made these decisions.”
One of the FOIA requests requested information on whether officials at HHS communicated with any one of nearly two dozen socially conservative think tanks or political organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation, and whether those communications influenced decisions on LGBTQ-related policies.
Another FOIA request asked for records belonging to, created by, addressed to, or sent to political appointees that mentioned, in whole or in part, discussed, referenced, or related to LGBTQ matters or people.
The third, a multi-part request, demanded records that mentioned or referred to HHS’s decision about whether to post, publish, or enforce any rule or regulation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex stereotypes, or transgender status against HHS employees, staff, contractors, or subcontractors, including the ability of LGBTQ individuals to access restrooms or other sex-designated facilities. That request also sought information about any decisions on rules or regulations prohibiting various forms of anti-LGBTQ discrimination in Medicare and Medicaid.
In December, after not hearing from HHS, Lambda Legal filed an administrative appeal, to which the department has also failed to respond.
The FOIA requests were prompted by reports that Trump administration appointees were overruling career staff and cancelling or delaying implementation of rules and initiatives dealing with reproductive health care and health care for LGBTQ people, including access to transition-related care.
Other reports claimed that HHS had worked with outside organizations to try and undermine existing nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people. Such actions included creating a new “Conscience and Religious Freedom” division within HHS to allow health care workers to refuse to perform procedures or provide certain types of health care if they have moral or religious objections to a person’s medical decisions — which has since been bolstered by a Trump executive order enumerating those “religious liberty” or “conscience protections.”
As part of its lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lambda Legal asks the court to compel HHS to provide responses to its FOIA requests, arguing that the agency has had sufficient time to find and share the information requested on communications related to LGBTQ health care. The organization also asks that HHS pay its attorney fees and other compensation for its work.
“Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy, and the Freedom of Information Act is a vital part of citizens’ ability to understand how the government works and hold politicians accountable,” Gonzalez-Pagan said. “HHS cannot be allowed to flout our laws, to devise discriminatory policies behind closed doors, and to work in the dark with outside organizations in order to promote discrimination against LGBTQ people.”
Idaho Republican Gov. Brad Little signed a bill into law prohibiting Medicaid and state employee health plans from covering the cost of gender-affirming medications and procedures for low-income transgender adults and minors.
House Bill 668 declares that public funds "shall not reimburse or provide coverage for any surgical operation or medical intervention...for purposes of altering the appearance of an individual in order to affirm the individual's perception of the individual's sex in a way that is inconsistent with the individual's biological sex."
The bill contains exemptions for certain types of surgical operations or medical interventions, such as those deemed medically necessary; those meant to force intersex people or those with "a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development" to conform to binary bodily stereotypes; and those used to help a person "de-transition" or to treat an "infection, injury, disease or disorder that has been caused or exacerbated by" gender-affirming surgery.
A federal appeals court ruled that states can't deny insurance coverage for gender-affirming medical care to transgender individuals.
The full panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of transgender plaintiffs in two cases from North Carolina and West Virginia, finding that existing insurance exclusions on gender-affirming care are discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs noted that this most recent ruling sets precedent, not only for North Carolina and West Virginia, but all other states within the 4th Circuit, including South Carolina, where state officials are considering a ban on gender-affirming care for minors -- one of the few Southern states without a ban currently in place.
The gay dating app Grindr is being sued for allegedly sharing personal information -- including users' HIV statuses -- with third parties.
In a class-action lawsuit, filed at the High Court in London, law firm Austen Hays asserted that at least 670 claimants -- and "potentially thousands" of other users in the United Kingdom -- had information about their health, sex lives, and sexual orientation shared with advertisers without their knowledge.
Those alleged actions violate the United Kingdom's data privacy laws.
According to the claim, Grindr allegedly shared users' personal information prior to April 3, 2018, although data was shared between May 2018 and April 2020.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!