Salem, Oregon – Attorney General Dan Rayfield has joined a lawsuit in several states against a new federal policy that ties significant amounts of public money to rules that the states fear would impose discrimination against transgender people. The case, which was filed with attorneys general from 11 other states, is against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services because of the conditions that come with federal funding for health care, education, and research.
The disagreement is mostly about a new HHS policy that says people who get federal money must attest that they are following a presidential executive order that changes the definition of sex in a way that the states argue excludes transgender individuals.
The complaint says that governments and institutions must agree to these restrictions or they could lose hundreds of billions of dollars in financing that they already have or will have in the future. The regulation affects a lot of organizations, like state agencies, public colleges, hospitals, and others, putting ongoing projects at risk.
Read also: Oregon joins list of states seeing net population loss at end of 2025, housing costs to blame?
Rayfield stated that Oregon has been working for years to make it easier for people to get care and to protect their right to make their own medical decisions.
“Oregon has worked hard to expand access to medical choice and make sure everyone can get the care they need,” said Attorney General Rayfield.
“This policy uses federal money to interfere with deeply personal medical decisions that belong to patients, families, and their doctors. Agencies shouldn’t be forced to take care away from people just to keep their funding.”
The attorneys general say that HHS doesn’t have the power to set these kinds of conditions. They say that the directive effectively rewrites Title IX by executive action, without going through Congress or following long-standing legal interpretations.
The lawsuit says that there were many legal violations, including as going beyond Congress’s ability to spend money, adding unclear and retroactive financing requirements, and making a big policy change without giving sufficient notice or explanation, as required by federal law.
The coalition also points to Oregon law, which sees discrimination based on gender identification as a serious public issue and broadly bans it in housing, public life, education, health care, and employment. Other states that are part of the case also have similar rights.
The states are asking the court to declare the HHS policy unlawful and block its enforcement. They claim that doing so would let them keep delivering important services without having to choose between upholding state civil rights legislation and keeping important federal funding.
