Transgender minors suing the University of Missouri over its decision to end gender-affirming care say the school isn’t entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and say there is no basis for the court to stay briefing on their request for a preliminary injunction.
The university asked the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri to stay briefing until it rules on the school’s motion to dismiss. The university argues it is entitled to sovereign immunity since it is an instrumentality of the state and that the state’s receipt of federal money for its healthcare programs doesn’t waive its immunity.
But the plaintiffs say that because the university must comply with any conditions placed on receiving federal funds by Congress when it passed the Affordable Care Act, the university’s argument is “baseless,” according to their response filed on Thursday.
The plaintiffs sued the university in November 2023 to stop it from enforcing a policy prohibiting medical providers from prescribing puberty-blocking drugs, hormone therapy, and surgery for gender dysphoria treatment for minors. They sought a preliminary injunction on Jan. 4 and argued a “grandfather” clause exempted them from the ban since they were already getting treatment before the law went into effect in August 2023.
The plaintiffs say the university’s decision to end all gender-affirming care violates the ACA’s anti-discrimination provision.
“The anti-discrimination provisions of the ACA are not compulsory legislation but mere conditions on the receipt of federal funding,” the plaintiffs say in their response. “The University is not required to accept any federal money; it has chosen to do so to attract more students and fund more research.”
Since it’s the university’s choice to accept federal funds, it must “abide by any conditions Congress attaches to that funding,” the plaintiffs argue.
The plaintiffs also say the university didn’t cite any case that requires the court to stay all proceedings related to their request for a preliminary injunction until the immunity question is resolved.
“Both judicial economy and the potential irreparable harm to Plaintiffs absent preliminary relief warrants simultaneous briefing on both motions,” they argue.
The plaintiffs are represented by TGH Litigation LLC.
The university is represented by Husch Blackwell LLP.
The case is J.C. v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., W.D. Mo., No. 2:23-cv-04216, response to motion to stay 1/18/24.
