Montgomery, AL – Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has led a coalition of 23 states in filing an amicus brief in support of former President Donald Trump’s Executive Order prohibiting federal agencies from funding sex-change procedures for minors. The order, which was issued during Trump’s administration, has been challenged in federal court in Maryland by plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal.
Marshall and the coalition of attorneys general argue that federal funding should not be used to support medical procedures they believe lack sufficient scientific backing. In a statement, Marshall criticized the ACLU’s legal challenge, asserting that medical guidelines supporting such procedures have been influenced by political interests.
“Our team in Alabama uncovered a shocking conspiracy to manipulate medical guidelines and then use the misleading recommendations to justify abolishing age limits for sex-change procedures,” Marshall stated. He further claimed that systematic evidence reviews contradict the necessity of such procedures for minors.
The amicus brief was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and was signed by attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Arizona State Legislature also joined the brief.
Supporters of the executive order argue that restricting federal funding for sex-change procedures for minors aligns with efforts to protect children from irreversible medical interventions. Opponents, including the ACLU and Lambda Legal, contend that such policies limit access to medically necessary care for transgender youth and infringe upon their rights.
Marshall has been actively involved in litigation concerning transgender medical care. He previously defended Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which restricts certain medical treatments for transgender minors. He also submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in October, arguing that medical standards of care have been politically influenced to favor specific legal outcomes.
The federal case in Maryland remains ongoing as both sides present arguments regarding the legality and implications of the executive order.
