The Colorado Supreme Court ordered Children’s Hospital Colorado on Tuesday to explain why it should not direct the organization to resume providing certain types of services to transgender children in compliance with the state’s non-discrimination law. Last month, a Denver judge declined to require Children’s Colorado to continue providing hormone therapy and puberty blockers to […]

Colorado Supreme Court signals intervention in dispute over treatment for trans children

Colorado Supreme Court justices answer questions from the audience at the conclusion of Courts in the Community at East High School on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. (Stephen Swofford, The Denver Gazette)

Last month, a Denver judge declined to require Children’s Colorado to continue providing hormone therapy and puberty blockers to the proposed class of trans patients, reasoning that the potential consequences from the federal government could endanger patient care more broadly.

The sequence of events began on Dec. 18, when U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published a statement declaring that “sex-rejecting procedures” for children are “neither safe nor effective” and “fail to meet professional recognized standards of health care.” Kennedy clarified that, while he has the authority to exclude entities from federal programs, like Medicaid, his declaration did not amount to an exclusion. Further, any excluded entities could seek administrative and judicial review of the decision.

Days later, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined other states in suing to block Kennedy’s declaration in Oregon’s federal court. He noted that Colorado law protects the treatment implicated in Kennedy’s statement.

Then, on Jan. 2, Children’s Colorado announced it was “pausing medical gender affirming care for patients under the age of 18 as we wait for any federal court rulings and assess the rapidly evolving legal landscape.”

On Jan. 20, four transgender children, through their parents, sued Children’s Colorado, alleging the hospital was violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. After a hearing in early February, District Court Judge Ericka F.H. Englert declined to issue a preliminary injunction requiring Children’s Colorado to resume its care.

She noted that the government agreed not to take action to exclude entities like Children’s Colorado from Medicaid until the federal judge in Oregon acted on a pending motion. Englert also acknowledged that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on their claims that Children’s Colorado was violating their rights on the basis of gender identity or disability.

Further, as a result of Children’s Colorado’s actions, “danger to Plaintiffs is also imminent. Plaintiffs are at imminent risk of psychological stress from stopping care, including an elevated risk of suicidal ideation,” she wrote on Feb. 13.

However, based on the possibility that the federal government would revoke Children’s Colorado’s participation in Medicaid, “the public across the Rocky Mountain Region would lose access to a wide range of pediatric care. This undoubtedly poses a grave danger to large populations of children and families,” Englert wrote.

Because ordering Children’s Colorado to resume care for trans children “could create a greater risk to a greater number of individuals,” she declined to issue an injunction.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing Englert had essentially found that violations of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act were in the public’s broader interest.

“Despite the fact that no action has been taken by the federal government to exclude any hospital or any provider from receiving federal funding, and that this administration has agreed that it would not even begin any process that could result in the denial of federal funding until April 19, 2026 at the earliest,” wrote the plaintiffs’ lawyers, “the court denied the injunction because the Hospital believes it is ‘still at risk’ for exclusion and that exclusion is not ‘beyond the realm of possibility.'”

In a March 3 order, the Supreme Court gave Children’s Colorado two weeks to explain why it should not overturn Englert’s decision. The plaintiffs will then have one week to reply. The court added that it will not extend any of its deadlines.

The case is Boe et al. v. Children’s Hospital Colorado.

:local

children's hospital colorado

colorado supreme court

gender-affirming care