[North America · San Diego, California, United States] A group of California families filed a class action complaint Thursday in San Diego County Superior Court against Rady Children's Health, one of the largest paediatric hospital systems in the United States, alleging that its January decision to stop providing gender-affirming care to patients under 19 constitutes unlawful discrimination under California law. The decision placed approximately 1,900 young patients at risk of losing ongoing treatment.
Four minors, identified in court documents only by their initials, serve as named plaintiffs representing what their legal counsel describes as a broader class of affected families — people navigating cancelled appointments, uncertain access to continued care, and the prospect of travelling significant distances to obtain treatment that had, until recently, been provided locally.
Amy Whelan, a staff attorney at the National Center for LGBTQ+ Rights, articulated the central legal claim in direct terms. Rady's decision, she said, amounts to terminating care based on who the patients are rather than their medical needs. Under California law, she noted, that constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity, both of which are explicitly prohibited.
The hospital's decision was made in direct response to federal pressure. Since returning to office in January 2025, the Trump administration has pursued a strategy of threatening to withdraw Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals that provide puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or related care to transgender minors — stopping short of an outright statutory ban while achieving a similar effect through financial coercion. More than 40 hospital systems across the country have restricted or suspended such services since early 2025. Rady Children's Health cited what it described as recent federal actions when it announced the suspension of services on January 20.
Whelan rejected that justification on legal grounds. Medical care, she said, is regulated at the state level, not the federal level, and California law explicitly protects access to gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. Healthcare providers remain bound by those state protections regardless of shifts in federal policy. She described hospitals that comply in advance with what she characterised as unlawful federal threats as setting a dangerous precedent for patient care more broadly.
The class action proceeds alongside a separate lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in January, which argues that Rady violated both state law and the conditions of a prior merger agreement by moving to eliminate gender-affirming services without the required regulatory approval.
The complaint also details the medical consequences already being experienced by patients. Some were in the process of initiating puberty blocker or hormone therapy regimens when their care was abruptly suspended. Others, already mid-treatment, now face interruptions that treating physicians warn can produce lasting physical and psychological harm, including significantly elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidality. All major American medical associations endorse gender-affirming care for young people as medically necessary and, in many cases, life-saving.
North American Editorial Office: Robin
