Chicago court keeps block on Florida suit over kids transgender medicine

By Jonathan Bilyk | Legal Newsline
The Center Square

Despite warnings from their colleague that they are ripping a hole in the U.S. Constitution and the concept of federalism, two Democrat-appointed federal appeals court judges have refused to put a hold on a Chicago federal judge’s order blocking Florida’s Republican state attorney general from using Florida state courts to enforce a Florida law against the Chicago-based American Academy of Pediatrics for allegedly misleading the public about the safety of child gender transitions.

On June 22, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to deny the request from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to stay the injunction entered by Chicago federal District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Kennelly was appointed to the Chicago federal bench by former Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton.

In the new ruling, Seventh Circuit judges David F. Hamilton and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi — who were appointed by former Democratic U.S. presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively — said they agreed with Kennelly’s findings that Uthmeier’s case against the American Academy of Pediatrics was based on an improper desire to use a legal action grounded in Florida state law to essentially punish the AAP for supporting child gender transitions.

While federal courts almost always are commanded by a U.S. Supreme Court precedent to abstain from getting involved in state court disputes, Hamilton and Jackson-Akiwumi said they could make an exception in this case, agreeing with Kennelly that Uthmeier’s legal action could be blocked because it was filed in “bad faith.”

Neither Hamilton nor Jackson-Akiwumi signed their name as the author of the majority opinion, which was filed as a “per curiam” decision. “Per curiam” is a Latin phrase, meaning “by the court.”

In dissent, however, their colleague, Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder excoriated his colleagues for allowing Kennelly’s ruling to stand, calling the decision “a grievous blow to federalism.”

Federalism is the central principle of the U.S. constitutional system, which balances the powers of the central federal government against those of the 50 sovereign U.S. states, permitting states to make and enforce their own unique laws.

Scudder was appointed to the appeals court during the first term of President Donald Trump.

In his dissent, Scudder said Kennelly should have abstained from stepping into the case altogether and warned of powerful, lasting repercussions, should Kennelly and the AAP ultimately prevail in this case.

“Make no mistake about the legal magnitude of what is at stake here,” Scudder wrote. “A federal court in Illinois has enjoined a state’s chief legal officer from proceeding in state court, all because it doubts the merits of his state law claims.

“The implications are grave. It is hard to see why future state defendants will not turn to federal court whenever they think a state complaint warrants dismissal and a public comment suggests ‘bad faith.’

“This decision expands the narrowest of exceptions into a gap in ‘Our Federalism’ that invites abuse.”

The decision, however, means, for now, Uthmeier would remain blocked from attempting to enforce Florida’s laws against the AAP in Florida state court.

The legal fight began in December 2025 in Florida’s 19th Judicial Circuit Court in St. Lucie County, when Uthmeier sued the AAP, along with two other medical organizations, the he World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society.

In that lawsuit, Uthmeier accused the organizations of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state’s Racketeer Influence and (RICO) Act.

The Florida lawsuit accused the groups of deceiving the public by allegedly knowingly lying about “credible evidence” backing their recommendations supporting the use of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones and gender transition surgeries for children.

In his filings, Uthmeier has particularly assailed the AAP for issuing a “policy statement” that concluded that “puberty blockers are ‘reversible’ and that gender-affirming care results in minors having fewer mental health concerns.” Uthmeier asserts those claims are not backed by scientific evidence and the policy statement was allegedly drafted and advanced by one person, a doctor who was not considered a medical authority, but was still undergoing his residency at the time and was launching a practice that “consisted largely of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors.”

“… AAP abandoned its ordinary procedural safeguards designed to separate editorial control and entrusted its clinical guidelines for treating pediatric gender dysphoria to an inexperienced market participant with conflicts of interest,” Uthmeier said in his filing.

The AAP has refused to retract the policy statement, despite government pressure and Uthmeier’s lawsuit.

Instead, the AAP, which is based in Chicago’s suburbs, sued Uthmeier in Chicago federal court, asserting Uthmeier’s lawsuit is an unconstitutional attempt to suppress their speech concerning the controversy surrounding child gender transitions.

Uthmeier sought to dismiss the AAP’s lawsuit, saying the action marked an unprecedented extra-jurisdictional attempt to use a federal court in one state to block a state attorney general from attempting to enforce his state’s laws in that state’s courts.

Kennelly, however, sided with the AAP, saying he believed an injunction is warranted because the effect of Florida’s lawsuit would be felt by the AAP, an organization in Illinois.

Although Illinois wasn’t the “focal point” of Uthmeier’s actions and statements targeting the AAP, “the effect on the Illinois audience is a key part of the First Amendment harm that AAP alleges,” Kennelly wrote. “Besides the general harm to its reputation among Illinois residents, AAP has submitted an uncontroverted affidavit attesting that it has faced security issues at its events and that its members have been harassed. Though it does not specify the location of these incidents, it is implausible that these issues are happening everywhere but the state in which AAP is headquartered.”

Kennelly said the convincing argument is that the relief Uthmeier seeks — an injunction to prevent the group from publishing anything supporting its position or collaborating with the other defendants — isn’t limited to what the group does in Florida.

Kennelly agreed with the AAP that the Florida action was a “bad faith” violation of the group’s First Amendment rights.

Uthmeier appealed that ruling to the Seventh Circuit, asserting Kennelly’s ruling was “lawless,” “frivolous” and dangerous. He asked the appeals court to reverse Kennelly’s ruling and, at least, pause the injunction, pending full appeal.

The Seventh Circuit, however, said they believed Kennelly’s ruling could withstand scrutiny, at least at this point, and rejected the request to put the injunction on hold, calling Uthmeier’s case in Florida “weak.”

Hamilton and Jackson-Akiwumi said in the majority decision that Uthmeier failed to account for two prior rulings from other federal judges, which were upheld on appeal, blocking other state attorneys general from pursuing “bad faith” actions against defendants in other states.

Among those were decisions from a Texas federal judge that blocked New Jersey’s Democratic attorney general from going after a defendant in Texas for printing instructions online for 3-D printed guns; and a ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocked Texas’ Republican attorney general from pursuing an action in Texas court against the left-wing group Media Matters for America for publishing an article claiming billionaire Elon Musk “was endorsing an antisemitic conspiracy theory” on the social media platform X, which Musk owns.

Hamilton and Jackson-Akiwumi said those two decisions provide “strong support” for Kennelly’s ruling, even though they said they “recognize that an injunction against a pending state enforcement action this this raises serious federalism concerns…”

Scudder, however, said the decision usurps Florida’s state power and amounts to a “vote of no confidence” in Florida state court judges to handle the case fairly.

“To be sure, maybe the Florida Attorney General’s enforcement action lacks merit. Perhaps it even violates the First Amendment,” Scudder wrote in dissent. “But those decisions belong to the Florida courts.

“… We have no basis whatsoever to doubt that the (AAP) would get a fair hearing in the Florida courts.”