Judge Forces Children’s Hospital to Continue Trans Care

In a move that underscores the ongoing clash between California’s progressive agenda and federal efforts to safeguard children, San Diego Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner has extended a temporary restraining order, compelling Rady Children’s Health to continue providing so-called “gender-affirming” care—including puberty blockers and hormone therapies—to minors under 19. This ruling comes just weeks after California Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a lawsuit against the hospital for halting these controversial procedures, citing a violation of a merger agreement. But as the dust settles on this latest courtroom drama, one thing is clear: California taxpayers are footing the bill for a battle that pits state ideology against common-sense child protection and potential loss of federal funding.

As previously reported, Bonta filed suit against Rady Children’s on January 30, 2026, after the hospital announced it would cease offering gender transition services for minors. The decision followed President Donald Trump’s executive order, issued on January 28, 2025, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” That order explicitly condemns the “maiming and sterilizing” of children through irreversible interventions and vows to withhold federal funds, including Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, from institutions engaging in such practices. Rady, which merged with Children’s Hospital of Orange County in November 2024, had argued that continuing these services would jeopardize its participation in essential federal programs, potentially harming the very families and children it serves.

The hospital’s spokesperson emphasized this point at the time, stating, “Taken together, these developments affect our role and responsibilities as a provider participating in federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, which are essential to caring for children and families in our communities.” It’s a stance backed by a California Family Council poll showing that 63% of California voters oppose gender-affirming care for minors—a clear indication that Bonta’s crusade is out of step with the public will.

Then this past week, Judge Braner has now extended a temporary restraining order by 15 days—until at least March 10, 2026—forcing Rady to resume non-surgical gender-affirming treatments like hormone therapy and puberty blockers. The judge acknowledged the complexity, calling it an “extraordinarily thorny issue,” but sided with the state’s demand to uphold the merger conditions approved by Bonta, which mandate maintaining these services until at least 2034. Fortunately, the order does exclude major surgeries, but that’s cold comfort for critics who argue that even reversible-sounding interventions like puberty blockers can have long-term, irreversible effects on young bodies and minds.

This ruling stands in stark contrast to actions elsewhere in the country. In New York, a city hospital recently shuttered its Transgender Youth Health Program, citing the “current regulatory environment” shaped by Trump’s executive order. It’s a pragmatic response that prioritizes compliance and funding stability over ideological posturing. Yet in California, where progressive policies often supersede fiscal responsibility, Bonta’s office is doubling down, forcing Rady into a lose-lose scenario: resume the treatments and risk billions in federal cuts, or defy the court and face state penalties.

The implications are dire. Rady Children’s isn’t just any hospital. It is Southern California’s premier provider of pediatric specialty care, serving vulnerable families through Medicaid and Medicare. Losing federal support could ripple out, affecting everything from neonatal intensive care to cancer treatments for kids. As one legal expert noted in the proceedings, this isn’t about abstract rights; it’s about real-world consequences for the state’s most needy. So dozens to hundred of actually sick or dying children will suffer in order to serve a handful of potentially trans children whose lives are not truly on the line.

Bonta’s team, however, frames the suit as a defense of “essential health services,” insisting that the merger agreement must be honored regardless of federal shifts. But let’s call it what it is: a taxpayer-funded push to enforce gender ideology on children, even as mounting evidence from detransitioner testimonies to European medical reviews questions the safety and efficacy of these interventions.

With a full hearing set for March 10, the fight is far from over. Will Judge Braner ultimately side with child protection and federal authority, or bow to California’s activist attorney general? One thing’s certain: This lawsuit is already wasting precious resources that could be better spent on proven pediatric care, not experimental procedures opposed by a majority of voters. As Trump’s order puts it, “It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another.” California might do well to heed that wisdom before it’s too late.