The Seventh Circuit on Wednesday cracked open the door for Florida to revive a high‑profile state lawsuit accusing major medical organizations of misleading families about gender‑affirming care for minors, putting a federal judge’s freeze on hold. The fight now jumps from a single Chicago courtroom to the full appeals court, raising fresh legal and political stakes for pediatricians and parents across Florida.
Appeals Court Puts Injunction On Hold
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s appeal en banc and immediately stayed the June preliminary injunction that had blocked the state lawsuit. In a brief order, the court wiped out a three‑judge panel’s earlier handling of the dispute and cleared the way for Florida to press its claims about the safety and reversibility of certain treatments for minors, according to the Seventh Circuit.
Uthmeier first took the fight to state court in December 2025, filing a complaint that named the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society and alleged violations of Florida’s racketeering and deceptive‑trade practices laws. In March 2026, the AAP fired back in federal court in Illinois, arguing the state case was designed to chill protected medical speech and asking a judge to halt it, according to reporting by AAP News.
In early June, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly sided with the Academy for the moment, granting a preliminary injunction after concluding that Uthmeier’s prior public statements and the thinness of the state complaint supported an inference that the action was brought in bad faith and aimed at suppressing the AAP’s advocacy. That ruling effectively froze Florida’s state‑court case while the federal lawsuit played out, as reflected in the memorandum filed in the U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill..
Why Florida Matters
Legal observers say the en banc review could determine how far state attorneys general can go in wielding consumer‑protection and racketeering statutes to challenge the guidance published by national medical societies. It is not just an academic question. More than two dozen states have enacted laws or policies limiting youth access to gender‑affirming care, creating a patchwork of bans, penalties and shield laws that make the outcome of this appeal especially consequential, according to KFF.
What Comes Next
The Seventh Circuit signaled it is moving fast. Briefing deadlines are already in place, and the full court has put the case on an expedited track. Oral argument is set for Sept. 30, 2026, and a steady stream of amicus briefs from states and medical organizations has been filing in, a pace that underscores the broader constitutional and federalism questions the judges are being asked to tackle, according to Bloomberg Law.
Whatever the full court decides will shape whether Florida can keep pursuing claims that, if successful, could ripple through how national medical societies draft and promote clinical guidance. The docket lists the Academy’s lead counsel and Florida’s solicitor general among the principal filings, and the appeals record is already attracting attention from other states and advocacy groups. Filings and appearances are available on the 7th Circuit docket.
