The Colorado Supreme Court ruled May 18 that a children’s hospital discriminated against “transgender” minors when it suspended access to drugs such as puberty blockers or hormone therapies amid concerns over potential federal sanctions.
In a 5-2 decision, the court remanded the case to a lower court and recommended requiring Children's Hospital Colorado to reinstate the gender “transition” mechanisms, The Colorado Sun reported.
Writing for the majority, Justice William Hood argued the hospital discriminated against “transgender” children — including the four who brought the suit against the hospital — by continuing to provide puberty blockers and hormone therapy to non-”transgender” children when deemed medically necessary, constituting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
According to the Sun, the hospital first backed away from gender “transition” programs in early 2025 after President Donald Trump issued an executive order describing pediatric gender-”transition” procedures as “chemical and surgical mutilation” and promising to refuse federal funding or assistance to such programs.
Though the hospital temporarily resumed its programs when a court blocked Trump’s order, it again suspended its “transition” services in response to a government investigation and a declaration from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, that found gender “transition” procedures to be neither safe nor effective.
The declaration prompted a second investigation, which the Sun reported could result in the hospital being excluded from Medicaid. According to the outlet, removal from Medicaid could also prompt the loss of contracts with other private insurers, end partnerships with doctors, and revoke the hospital’s accreditation and license.
In the ruling, Hood dismissed the hospital’s claim that providing “transition” services could have consequences from the federal government, saying that the threats are “speculative” and reasoning that the hospital could ask courts to intervene should the government actually move to sanction it.
“The Kennedy Declaration may have influenced CHC’s decision, but it doesn’t absolve CHC of responsibility,” the ruling adds.
The dissent, written by Justice Brian Boatright, argues that the hospital did not discriminate because the programs were suspended over fear of repercussions, not because the patients they served were “transgender.”
“It was a decision driven by the direct threat to the viability of the entire hospital,” he wrote. “Based on the record before us, I cannot fathom that CHC would have made this call if the consequences of the Kennedy Declaration were not so severe.”
Boatright also disagreed that the hospital’s continued provision of hormones and puberty blockers to non- “trans” patients constituted discrimination, saying that though the prescription is the same, the intent is different.
>> Trump admin to cut funding from hospitals that provide child gender 'transition' services <<