San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump - Preliminary Injunction Awarded

 

San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump

United States District Court - Northern District of California

John S. Tigar, D.J.  Case 4:25-cv-01824-JST

Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69658554/san-francisco-aids-foundation-v-trump/

wikipedia: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69658554/san-francisco-aids-foundation-v-trump/

Opinion and ORDER - Granting (in part) Preliminary Injunction - June 9, 2025

. BACKGROUND A. The Executive Orders On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order No. 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8650 (Jan. 20, 2025), “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (“Gender Order”). That same day, he also signed Executive Order 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025), “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” (“DEI-1 Order”). On January 21, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (“DEI-2 Order”) (collectively, “Challenged Orders”). Plaintiffs move to enjoin the enforcement of the following provisions of the Challenged Orders against them: Section 3(e) of the Gender Order (the “Gender Termination Provision”); Section 3(g) of the Gender Order (the “Gender Promotion Provision”); Section 4(d) of the Gender Order (the “Intimate Spaces Provision”); Section 2(b)(i) of the DEI-1 Order (the “Equity Termination Provision”); Section 2(b)(ii)(C) of the DEI-1 Order (the “List Provision”); Section 3(c)(ii) of the DEI-2 Order (the “DEIA Principles Provision”); Section 3(c)(iii) of the DEI-2 Order (the “Diversity Termination Provision”); Section 3(b)(iv)(A)-(B) of the DEI-2 Order (the “Certification Provision”); and Section 4(b) of the DEI-2 Order (the “Enforcement Threat Provision”) (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”). The language of these provisions is described further below. 

***

Absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations. This loss not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces Plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Equity Termination Provision, Gender Termination Provision, and Gender Promotion Provision against them. The Court addresses the parties’ arguments and explores the Court’s reasoning for granting Plaintiffs’ motion in part and denying it in part more fully below. I. 

BACKGROUND A. The Executive Orders 

On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order No. 14168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8650 (Jan. 20, 2025), “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (“Gender Order”). That same day, he also signed Executive Order 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025), “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI [3] Programs and Preferencing” (“DEI-1 Order”). On January 21, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (“DEI-2 Order”) (collectively, “Challenged Orders”). 

 Plaintiffs move to enjoin the enforcement of the following provisions of the Challenged Orders against them: Section 3(e) of the Gender Order (the “Gender Termination Provision”); Section 3(g) of the Gender Order (the “Gender Promotion Provision”); Section 4(d) of the Gender Order (the “Intimate Spaces Provision”); Section 2(b)(i) of the DEI-1 Order (the “Equity Termination Provision”); Section 2(b)(ii)(C) of the DEI-1 Order (the “List Provision”); Section 3(c)(ii) of the DEI-2 Order (the “DEIA Principles Provision”); Section 3(c)(iii) of the DEI-2 Order (the “Diversity Termination Provision”); Section 3(b)(iv)(A)-(B) of the DEI-2 Order (the “Certification Provision”); and Section 4(b) of the DEI-2 Order (the “Enforcement Threat Provision”) (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”). The language of these provisions is described further below.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - June 13, 2025

 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and all briefing  papers filed in connection therewith, as well as oral argument. The Court may issue a preliminary injunction when a plaintiff establishes that “[it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,632 F. 3d 1127, 1131–35 (9th Cir 2011). 

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order dated June 9, 2025, Granting in Part and Denying In Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 81] (the “June 9, 2025 Opinion”), the Court finds that Plaintiffs have carried their burden of satisfying each of those factors as to three challenged provisions within two Executive Orders. Immediate relief is appropriate in order to alter the status quo and address the irreparable harm that Plaintiffs face absent an injunction. 

 Specifically, the Court enjoins the following provisions of two Executive Orders: (1) Executive Order No. 14168,2 section 3(e) which provides that agencies “shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology” (“Gender Termination Provision”); (2) Executive Order No. 14168, section 3(g) which provides that “[f]ederal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology” (“Gender Promotion Provision”); and (3) Executive Order No. 141513, section 2(b)(i) that directs each agency, department or commission head to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all . . . ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts.” (“Equity Termination Provision”). 

 The Court ORDERS the following, consistent with the June 9, 2025 Opinion, which is fully incorporated herein: