AAP's Transgender Treatment Allegations Revived as Seventh Circuit Clears Florida to Resume Case

The American Academy of Pediatrics is facing the return of a Florida lawsuit accusing it of misleading families about transgender youth treatments, after the full US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit intervened in the case.

In an order filed on 8 July, the Chicago-based appeals court agreed to rehear the dispute with all of its judges and paused a lower court injunction that had stopped Florida from pursuing its claims against the group.

What the Order Changes

The order vacates a 22 June panel opinion and stays a district court preliminary injunction that had blocked Florida's case, according to the court's filing. The stay means Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier can resume pursuing his lawsuit against the AAP in Florida state court.

The Seventh Circuit also ruled that the case will be heard 'initially en banc', bypassing a further three-judge panel hearing under federal appellate rules.

Dissent Over the Ruling

Five judges — Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, Lee, Pryor and Maldonado — dissented from the decision to stay the injunction. They disagreed 'for the reasons explained in the panel majority opinion', pointing back to their earlier ruling that had kept Florida's lawsuit blocked.

That panel ruling had previously sided with a lower court finding that Uthmeier's case against the AAP was rooted in an improper attempt to punish the group for its advocacy on gender-affirming care. The dissenting judges argued that the underlying legal questions, particularly whether the AAP's guidance constitutes protected speech or commercial activity, had not been fully resolved and warranted continued scrutiny.

Case Background

The dispute stems from a lawsuit Uthmeier filed in December 2025 in Florida's 19th Judicial Circuit Court. It accuses the AAP, along with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society, of violating the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and its Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The AAP responded by suing Uthmeier in federal court in Chicago, arguing the state case was retaliation against its advocacy work. US District Judge Matthew Kennelly agreed, granting a preliminary injunction and ruling the Florida complaint 'rests on a weak theory that its medical guidance constituted commercial speech'.

The case sits at the intersection of two highly charged debates: the medical standards for transgender youth care and the reach of state authority over national medical organisations. Florida has been at the forefront of state-level restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, with several laws passed in recent years limiting access to such treatments.

What Happens Next

The Seventh Circuit has not yet set a date for oral argument, saying only that a new briefing schedule will follow in a separate order. Both sides are expected to file fresh arguments as the full court, rather than a three-judge panel, prepares to hear the dispute.

The case is being closely watched because it tests how far a federal court in one state can block a state attorney general from enforcing that state's own laws in its own courts. The outcome could shape future disputes between state officials pursuing their own policies and federal courts in other jurisdictions, particularly on cases involving transgender healthcare for minors.