The American Academy of Pediatrics said it was difficult to sue Attorney General James Uthmeier in Illinois, and defend itself in Florida at the same time.
The leading U.S. pediatrics group is seeking to withdraw its lawsuit against Florida’s attorney general over his threatened legal action against groups that promoted gender surgery for children.
A federal judge initially blocked Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s plan to go after the groups—at least until the American Academy of Pediatrics’ suit against him played out—but an appeals court overturned his decision earlier this month.
The academy, in its July 22 motion to dismiss, argues that it has “budget constraints” and “must now focus its resources on defending against the case in Florida.”
The group is asking that its suit be dismissed without prejudice, which would allow it to bring the same lawsuit again at a later date.
It also wants the judge to rule that each side will be responsible for their own legal fees.
The legal back-and-forth began last December, when Uthmeier announced his state would take legal action against the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Uthmeier’s suit went after the groups for violating consumer rights under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
They had promoted “so-called gender-affirming care for children,” he said, but “failed to disclose the risks, limits, and evidence” of those procedures.
“For years, these groups insisted the recommendations were settled science, but behind closed doors, they knew the evidence was weak. They knew the outcomes uncertain, and the risks very real,” he said in a video posted to X.
The academy hit back with its own lawsuit. Even though Florida’s suit was filed in state court, the academy brought its case in a Chicago district court.
On June 2, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly halted Florida’s suit with a preliminary injunction.
He ruled that the state’s claim was likely a violation of the academy’s First Amendment rights and was “retaliatory” viewpoint discrimination.
He also ruled that it was appropriate for the academy to bring its case in Illinois, since Uthmeier’s action would have affected the organization’s work nationwide.
“Litigating in Illinois may be burdensome to Uthmeier, but it is a more convenient forum for AAP,” his opinion says.
Uthmeier asked the judge to stay his preliminary order until the suit was fully litigated, but found no success.
A three-judge panel in the Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit also denied the request.
But on July 8, an en banc panel with all the judges of the Seventh Circuit voted to halt Kennelly’s order.
It also made the unusual step of taking up the case before the three-judge panel had a chance to rule on the merits.
That decision meant Florida’s suit against the Academy and the other groups could move forward.
Several judges objected to the decision to skip having the three-judge panel hear the matter.
Circuit Judge Lee, in a brief dissent, wrote that even though a court rule allowed that move, it should not become commonplace.
“And, to be clear, I express no views on the merits of the appeal,” he wrote.
“Perhaps this is one of the exceedingly rare cases that Rule 40(g) envisions and will prove to be the extraordinary exception and not the rule.”
