Members of the federal judiciary are taking their scrutiny of President Trump’s executive orders to a new level, going so far as to weigh in on his administration’s authority to remove content about gender ideology from federal web pages. 

A district court judge at Washington, D.C., John Bates, ordered federal health agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration to restore sex and gender content to their websites by 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday.

In January, the Office of Personnel Management directed federal agencies to remove “all outward facing media (websites, social media accounts, etc.) that inculcate or promote gender ideology.” The directive to remove such content was made to comply with Mr. Trump’s executive orders seeking to root out DEI and ideology from the federal government.

After the memo, CDC webpages about transgender procedures and “LGBTQ+ youth” were taken down, and a page on the HHS website that offered “LGTQI+ Resources” was removed. 

A group of doctors, Doctors for America, challenged the move in federal court, arguing that the removal of the information would hurt their ability to provide treatment for patients. 

“The removal of these or similar webpages and datasets creates a dangerous gap in the scientific data available to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, deprives physicians of resources that guide clinical practice, and takes away key resources for communicating and engaging with patients,” their lawsuit said. 

The group also argued the decision was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

During a hearing Monday, Judge Bates appeared to question what the purpose of issuing an injunction would be since the content had already been removed. “What use is my injunction?” he asked. “I can’t put that toothpaste back in the tube, can I?”

A lawyer for Public Citizen, which represented Doctors for America and has been involved in challenging other Trump administration priorities, suggested that if the judge ordered that the content be restored it could prevent harm in the future. 

However, lawyers for the Justice Department said that the doctors did not show that the decision to take down the web pages would cause harm, and they said the information could still be accessed on archival sites like the Wayback Machine.

The plaintiffs also argued that low-income patients who visit clinics often rely on public transportation and have tight schedules. The time it takes doctors to find other sources of the information that was removed from federal websites could prolong their visits, the plaintiffs said. 

In his ruling Tuesday, Judge Bates said, “These doctors’ time and effort are valuable…and being forced to spend them elsewhere makes their jobs harder and their treatment less effective.”

He also found that the decision to remove such content is different from simple maintenance of websites and could be subject to federal review. 
The order to reinstate the content comes as a growing number of district courts around the country are acting to block Mr. Trump’s agenda, which has led Republicans to question whether they have the authority to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions.