Federal judge gives Trump administration 7 days to restore LGBTQ+ research by two Harvard doctors to website
'The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act,' US District Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote in his two-page order allowing the requested preliminary injunction.
Advertisement
'They have suffered irreparable harm and will continue to suffer it in the absence of relief, the balance of harms tips decisively in their favor, and the public interest favors an injunction,' Sorokin wrote.
A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for Wednesday in federal court in Boston.
'Our clients were faced with an impossible choice: remove their patient safety research from PSNet entirely or change the words and messages to fit what this administration agrees with,' Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said in a statement.
Advertisement
'Republishing their articles is a victory for free speech and public health,' Davidson added. 'The government can't censor medical research solely because it disfavors certain viewpoints.'
The physicians who brought the lawsuit forward applauded the judge's order.
'We are very gratified and encouraged by this affirmation of the First Amendment, academic freedom, and the illegality of the actions by the Trump administration in attempting to censor and take down our peer-reviewed patient safety articles,' Schiff's statement said.
'We hope it gives others in the educational, research, and medical communities the courage to not be intimidated in resisting these unacceptable actions by the Trump administration that, unopposed, will cost many thousands of lives,' Schiff continued. 'While re-posting of our articles to PSNet will reverse small, but important injustices, the larger attacks on public health and patient safety and health care access must also be resisted and reversed.'
Royce said she was grateful for the opportunity 'to stand up for not just our rights, but those of other physicians, scientists, researchers, students, and all those who have been illegally silenced or engaged in self-censorship out of fear of this administration and the dismantling of our government and our democracy.'
'As an educator and a physician, I will continue to fight misinformation and falsehoods put out by the administration, and I will continue to advocate for the rights of my patients and my students,' Royce said. 'I hope our victory today will inspire others to continue to fight against all the injustices happening, and fight for the civil and human rights of the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and all the communities this administration is trying to silence and suppress.'
Advertisement
Tonya Alanez can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
19 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate appropriators defend the NIH
WASHINGTON WATCH Senate appropriators came out hard in support of the National Institutes of Health on Thursday, giving the agency a $400 million funding boost for the 2026 fiscal year. How so: The Senate Appropriations Committee upped the agency's budget to $48.7 billion in the 2026 funding bill that cleared the panel with a 26-3 vote Thursday. If the bill becomes law, it would increase cancer research by $150 million; Alzheimer's research by $100 million and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, research by $25 million. The NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research on Women's Health would each get a $30 million boost. Research on maternal mortality, diabetes and rare diseases would also see an increase, among others. Why it matters: The funding boost is a rebuke from both Republicans and Democrats to the Trump administration's demand to decrease the NIH funding in the next fiscal year by as much as 40 percent, or $18 billion. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the legislation 'prioritizes funding to help make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, said the budget increase was a message to 'the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration. This committee's resounding message is: 'Yes, Congress has your back.'' Murray urged scientists to continue their research in the U.S. despite the efforts of other countries to lure them away. The appropriators also adopted an amendment Thursday that would limit the Trump administration's control over NIH research funding. An amendment in the bill's manager's package limits the administration's plan to shift funding for most NIH grants from a multiyear schedule to an upfront single-year payment. The amendment states that no funds appropriated in the fiscal 2026 spending bill can be used to increase the proportion of grants fully funded in the first year of the award, compared with fiscal 2024. The NIH can only increase that proportion of forward-funded grants if the agency ensures it isn't cutting grants to do so. What's next: The bill is cleared for floor action. But congressional leaders haven't started bipartisan negotiations toward overall government funding totals, increasing the odds that lawmakers will again resort to a stopgap funding patch before the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Peacock feathers have reflective structures that can amplify light into a laser beam, Science reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. WORLD VIEW A draft United Nations plan to make the world healthier no longer includes several targets cracking down on sugary drinks, trans fats and tobacco to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases globally. Struck down: A target of 80 percent of countries taxing sugary drinks at levels recommended by the World Health Organization by 2030, POLITICO's Rory O'Neill reports. That goal was a pillar of the initial draft, which will take the form of a nonbinding political declaration world leaders are expected to endorse at a Sept. 25 meeting in New York, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly. The latest version has also dropped commitments to eliminate trans fats and aims instead to reduce them to the 'lowest level possible.' It also requires front-of-pack labels with nutritional information. A requirement for health warnings on tobacco packaging to be graphic and accompanied by elements that make it unattractive to consumers is also gone. The new draft has softer language on tobacco advertising, requiring countries to restrict it instead of eliminate it. 'Make no mistake, the Declaration in its current form is a backslide,' said Alison Cox, director of policy and advocacy at the NCD Alliance, in a statement. The alliance is a Switzerland-based civil society group working to promote chronic disease prevention. Why it matters: World leaders aim to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes by 2030 through prevention and treatment and to improve mental health and well-being globally. Noncommunicable diseases killed 18 million people under age 70 in 2021, according to the WHO. Most deaths were in low- and middle-income countries. The aims align with the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda, but it's unclear how much the U.S. is involved in drafting the final text. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What's next: Negotiators are meeting this week in New York to discuss the text.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alignment Healthcare (ALHC) Soars 10.4% on Growth Guidance Beat, Higher Growth Outlook
We recently published . Alignment Healthcare Inc. (NASDAQ:ALHC) is one of the best-performing stocks on Wednesday. Alignment Healthcare saw its share prices grow by 10.36 percent on Wednesday to close at $13 apiece after exceeding its growth guidance across all key metrics for the second quarter and raising its outlook for the rest of the year. During the second quarter period, Alignment Healthcare Inc. (NASDAQ:ALHC) swung to a net income attributable to shareholders of $15.67 million from a $24 million net loss in the same period last year. Source: Pexels Total revenues grew by 49 percent to $1.015 billion from $682 million year-on-year, while health plan membership ended at 223,700, up 27.8 percent year-on-year. For the first half, Alignment Healthcare Inc. (NASDAQ:ALHC) recorded a $6.55-million net income, reversing a net loss of $70.5 million year-on-year, as revenues grew by 48 percent to $1.9 billion from $1.3 billion. Looking ahead, the company is looking to increase its health plan membership to between 225,000 and 227,000 in the third quarter, and up to 229,000 to 234,000 by the end of the year. Revenues for the current quarter are also pegged at $970 million to $985 million, while revenues for the full year were targeted to hit $3.885 billion to $3.91 billion. While we acknowledge the potential of ALHC as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the .
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
States Sue Over Trump Efforts to End Pediatric Transgender Medical Care
A coalition of states led by Democrats, including New York and California, sued Friday to stop the Trump administration from investigating doctors and hospitals who provide children with medical treatments for gender transition. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Massachusetts, comes amid escalating efforts by the federal government to put an end to the availability of puberty blockers, hormones and gender-related surgeries for transgender adolescents. In the past two months, the F.B.I. has asked the public to call its tip line about doctors 'who mutilate' children 'under the guise of gender-affirming care.' The Justice Department sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that perform transgender medical procedures on minors, demanding confidential patient information. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether 'practitioners of 'gender-affirming care' may be actively deceiving consumers' by making unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of such care, or by omitting warnings about risks to pediatric patients. Some medical experts have concerns about the long-term side effects of puberty blockers and hormones on brain development, bone density and fertility. Federal agencies served at least two subpoenas to major New York hospital systems in recent weeks — Mount Sinai Health and NYU Langone Health — as part of the inquiries into pediatric transgender medicine, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose subpoenas or had been told about their existence in confidence. Representatives for Mount Sinai and NYU Langone declined to comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general for 15 states and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks the federal court to declare that the government policies that prompted the investigations into pediatric transgender care were unlawful and must not be enforced. The lawsuit argues that the Justice Department's actions 'reflect an unconstitutional attempt to infringe on the states' power to regulate medicine.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
