Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.
The court issued an injunction preventing the Trump Administration from threatening to withhold Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals and clinics that provide gender-affirming care, thereby blocking the administration's coercive tactics.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with healthcare providers, customer agreements with state-funded health programs (e.g., Medicaid managed care organizations), and any data processing addendums involving protected health information. Key clauses to examine include termination for non-compliance (to ensure it does not permit termination or funding denial for providing lawful gender-affirming care), service coverage definitions (to confirm inclusion of such care and avoid ambiguous exclusions), patient consent and assent requirements (especially for minor patients), provider certification and licensure standards, and federal funding compliance obligations. Given the court's ruling blocking funding cuts for gender-affirming care, contracts may need amendments to: (1) explicitly protect providers from termination or financial penalties for offering court-protected services; (2) clarify medical necessity criteria for gender-affirming care to align with current legal standards; (3) strengthen minor consent procedures to comply with state laws and professional guidelines; and (4) incorporate regulatory change notification provisions requiring advance notice and opportunity to challenge arbitrary funding reductions.
Entity
Trump Administration
Industry
Other"Trump Administration"
"unlawful attempt by the Trump Administration to pressure healthcare providers into ending care for youth with gender dysphoria"
A coalition of 24 states led by Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones won a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, invalidating illegal tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs were unauthorized by law, as a trade deficit does not constitute the required 'large and serious balance-of-payment deficits' under the statute. The ruling prevents the administration from enforcing the 10% worldwide tariffs on most products.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.
Consumer protection enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a coalition of 24 states in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump Administration's imposition of tariffs on imported goods. The states argue the tariffs are unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as they cause financial harm to consumers and state governments by increasing prices and procurement costs.
Consumer protection lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, on behalf of a coalition of 24 states and two governors, challenging the Trump Administration's imposition of worldwide tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The suit alleges the administration is acting without legal authority, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional separation of powers, and causing immediate financial harm to American consumers and businesses through increased prices.
New Jersey, serving as co-lead of a 22-state coalition, filed a motion for summary judgment on January 22, 2026, seeking an expedited order to stop the Trump Administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) before March 2026. The states argue that defunding the CFPB would undermine federal and state consumer protection efforts, including states’ reliance on CFPB consumer complaint data and mortgage lending data for enforcement actions. This motion builds on a December 2025 lawsuit filed by the same coalition challenging the administration’s threats to withhold CFPB funding.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, on behalf of a multistate coalition, filed a motion in U.S. District Court to enforce a preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump Administration from demanding personal and sensitive information about Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. The Administration has renewed its demand, threatening to withhold administrative funding from states that do not comply, which the AG argues violates the existing court order and federal law protecting the confidentiality of SNAP applicant data.