Judge rules US government overreached with transgender health care declaration

A federal judge said the government overreached by issuing a declaration that called treatments like puberty blockers and surgeries unsafe and ineffective for young people experiencing gender dysphoria, according to a ruling Thursday in Oregon. Judge Mustafa Kasubhai’s ruling was centered on Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. not going through the proper administrative procedures when issuing the declaration in December. The declaration also warned doctors that they could be excluded from federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid if they provide these treatments. The judge also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. The judge’s ruling was at the end of a roughly 6-hour hearing and will be followed by a written decision. “Today’s win breaks through the noise and gives some needed clarity to patients, families, and providers,” the Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement Thursday. “Health care services for transgender young people remain legal, and the federal government cannot intimidate or punish the providers who offer them.” A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. The New York Times reported that the judge spoke about the broader implications associated with this case, especially as it relates to democracy. “The notion that ‘I will go forward and issue a declaration and see if we can get away with it’ is not a principle of governance that adheres to the overarching commitment to a democratic republic that requires the rule of law to be regarded and respected and honored as a sacred,” the judge said. The decision is the second major legal setback for Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week. Another federal judge in Boston on Monday temporarily blocked several of Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes. The judge ruled Kennedy likely violated federal procedures in revamping a key vaccine advisory committee and slimming down the childhood vaccine schedule without the committee’s input. Federal officials have indicated they plan to appeal that ruling. A coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia in December sued HHS, Kennedy and its inspector general over the declaration, alleging that it is inaccurate and unlawful and asking the court to block its enforcement. The lawsuit says that HHS’s declaration seeks to coerce providers to stop providing gender-affirming care and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. It also says federal law requires the public to be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively changing health policy — neither of which, the suit says, was done before the declaration was issued. HHS’s declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that urged greater reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender-affirming care for youths with gender dysphoria. The report questioned standards for the treatment of transgender youth issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and raised concerns that adolescents may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility. Major medical groups and those who treat transgender young people have sharply criticized the report as inaccurate, and most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, continue to oppose restrictions on transgender care and services for young people.

Supreme Court Blocks California Transgender Student Disclosure Law

The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for California schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the student’s approval, granting an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group. The order blocks for now a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The split decision comes after religious parents and educators challenged California school policies aimed at preventing schools from outing students to their families. Two sets of Catholic parents represented by the Thomas More Society say it caused schools to mislead them and secretly facilitate the children’s social transition despite their objections. California, on the other hand, argued that students have the right to privacy about their gender expression, especially if they fear rejection from their families. The state said that school policies and state law are aimed at striking a balance with parents’ rights. The high court majority, though, sided with the parents and reinstated a lower-court order blocking the law and school policies while the case continues to play out. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs,” and burden the free exercise of religion, the majority wrote in an unsigned order. The court’s three liberal justices publicly dissented, saying the case is still working its way through lower courts and there was no need to step in now. “If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures. And throwing over a State’s policy is what the Court does today,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, noted they would have gone further and granted teachers’ appeal to lift restrictions for them. The Thomas More Society called the decision “the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office defended the law, saying teachers should be focused on instruction, not required “to be gender cops.” The order “undermines student privacy and the ability to learn in a safe and supportive classroom, free from discrimination based on gender identity,” said Marissa Saldivar, a spokesperson for the Democratic governor. The Supreme Court has ruled for religious plaintiffs in other recent cases, including allowing parents to pull their children from public-school lessons if they object to storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters. The California order comes months after the court upheld state bans on gender-identity-related healthcare for minors. The justices also seem to be leaning toward allowing states to ban transgender athletes from playing on girls sports teams. School policies for transgender students, meanwhile, have also been on the court’s radar in other cases. The court rebuffed another similar case out of Wisconsin in December, but three conservative justices indicated they would have heard the case. Justice Samuel Alito called the school policies “an issue of great and growing national importance.” The justices have been weighing whether to hear arguments in cases out of states like Massachusetts and Florida filed by other parents who say schools facilitated social transition without informing them. The Trump administration, meanwhile, found in January that California’s policies violated parents’ right to access their children’s education records. The Justice Department also sued after determining the states’ transgender athlete policies violate federal civil rights law.

San Antonio Airport Budget Parking: Green Lot

Every time I use San Antonio Airport, I notice that the parking fees accumulate significantly when parking at the airport terminal for long periods.

The close and expensive spots, just a 3-minute walk from the terminal, can easily cost $150 for 3 days and 4 nights.

So, if you are planning a trip to another area for more than 2-3 days, managing parking fees is essentially managing your travel budget.

Today, based on 2026, I will summarize how to use the Green Parking Lot, the most cost-effective parking method at San Antonio Airport.

First, regarding the SAT Green Parking Lot rates, if you book online at least 7 days in advance, it costs about $7 to $9 per day. If you don't book, the long-term parking rate is about $10 per day. This is the cheapest parking option when using San Antonio Airport.

The Green Parking Lot is located deep within the airport grounds, but it is quite convenient because a free shuttle runs 24 hours. When entering the airport, you can follow the GPS directions for Economy Parking or Green Lot, and if you have a reservation, the gate will open automatically by recognizing your license plate. If you haven't made a reservation, you will need to take a ticket at the entrance. Make sure to keep the ticket visible in your car.

When you park, the most important thing is to record your zone number. You should take a photo of the zone number, like G-3, or note it in a parking app. I can assure you that you won't remember it after 2 days. If you forget where you parked after your trip, it can be really frustrating. By the way, the parking lot is very large, so there are separate shuttle stops numbered 1, 2, and so on. I'm not sure how many there are, but I've heard of up to 4.

If you wait at the Bus Stop shelters located throughout the parking lot, the white shuttles usually arrive every 10 to 15 minutes. It takes about 5 to 10 minutes to get to the terminal by shuttle. They come frequently, so you won't have to wait long.

Upon arrival at the airport, the shuttle drops you off near the baggage claim areas of Terminals A and B. When you return from your trip, you can take the Green Lot shuttle from the same Ground Transportation area, and the driver will drop you off near your zone number if you tell them.

As mentioned earlier, to save even more on parking fees, it is advisable to make a reservation in advance. Booking through the official San Antonio Airport website is often cheaper than paying on-site, and during peak seasons, there may not be any spots available, making it practically essential.

Read the full article here