A federal judge just threw a wrench into the Biden administration’s attempt to redefine health care discrimination rules with a ruling that’s got the progressive agenda reeling.
The Hill reported that Judge Louis Guirola Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi struck down a Biden-era regulation on Wednesday that sought to expand federal health care protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity under the umbrella of sex discrimination.
Back in 2016, under former President Obama, the initial rule was crafted to broaden protections in health programs under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. It was a move hailed by some as a step forward for LGBTQ rights.
Fast forward to the Trump administration, and that rule got a serious haircut. The definition of “sex” was narrowed to biological distinctions, effectively sidelining transgender protections while maintaining safeguards against bias based on race, color, age, and other factors.
Enter the Biden team in 2024, and they swung the pendulum back, reinstating and expanding the rule to ensure that entities receiving federal health funding or insurers tied to government plans couldn’t deny services like gender-affirming care if similar care was offered for other reasons. It was a bold push, no question.
But here’s where the rubber meets the road—15 GOP-led states banded together to challenge this expansion, arguing it overstepped federal authority. They weren’t buying the administration’s reinterpretation of “sex discrimination” to include gender identity.
Judge Guirola sided with the states, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services “exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender identity discrimination,” as he put it. That’s a polite way of saying the administration tried to rewrite the dictionary without Congress’s permission.
Guirola further noted that the term “sex must “cannot be divorced from the circumstances existing at the time it was passed, anchoring his decision to the original intent of the 1972 statute, focused on reproductive differences between males and females.
Talk about a history lesson with teeth—progressive policymakers might want to dust off their old law books.
This ruling isn’t just a slap on the wrist; it’s a universal vacating of the rule, meaning it doesn’t just apply to the red-state plaintiffs but everywhere. Thankfully, the impact might be somewhat muted since the rule hadn’t yet kicked into gear.
Leading the charge for the states, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti didn’t hold back his enthusiasm, stating, “Our fifteen-State coalition worked together to protect the right of health care providers across America to make decisions based on evidence, reason, and conscience.”
That’s a not-so-subtle jab at federal overreach, and it’s hard to argue with prioritizing medical judgment over bureaucratic mandates.
Skrmetti added that the decision “restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach,” a sentiment that resonates with those wary of Washington playing doctor. It’s a win for states’ rights, no matter how you slice it.
For the transgender community, though, this is a tough pill to swallow. Facing a barrage of state and federal policies chipping away at previously secured rights, this court decision is another setback in a long line of challenges.
Let’s be clear—disagreement with policy doesn’t mean dismissing the real struggles of individuals seeking fair access to health care.
But when federal agencies start redefining laws without legislative backing, it’s a slippery slope that could impact everyone’s freedoms, not just one group’s.
At its core, this ruling questions whether unelected bureaucrats should have the power to reinterpret decades-old statutes to fit modern social debates. That’s a conversation worth having, even if it stings for some.
So, where do we go from here? The Biden administration’s vision for health care equity just hit a brick wall, but the broader fight over how “sex” is defined in law is far from over. One thing’s certain—expect more courtroom battles as both sides dig in their heels.