Faced with the likelihood of a stinging appellate defeat that could reshape the balance between federal and state authority, the American Academy of Pediatrics has abruptly moved to abandon its attempt to use a Chicago federal court to shield itself from a consumer-fraud and racketeering lawsuit brought by Floridas attorney general over claims about the safety of child gender-transition procedures.
According to Just The News, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on July 22 filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asking Judge Matthew Kennelly for permission to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. At the same time, the AAP petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to halt ongoing appellate proceedings in Uthmeiers challenge to Kennellys earlier rulings in the case.
These filings mark the latest turn in a high-stakes legal confrontation that has already featured aggressive and, critics say, constitutionally dubious efforts to expand federal judicial power at the expense of state sovereignty. The dispute centers on whether a professional medical association can use a federal court in one state to block an elected attorney general in another state from enforcing that states consumer-protection and racketeering laws in its own courts.
The conflict began last December, when Uthmeier filed suit in Florida state court in St. Lucie County against the AAP and two other influential medical organizations. Those additional defendants were the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society, both of which have been central in promoting so?called gender-affirming care for minors.
In his Florida complaint, Uthmeier alleged that the organizations violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as the states Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. He accused the groups of engaging in a coordinated effort to mislead the public about the scientific basis and safety of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions for children and adolescents.
The Florida lawsuit contends the organizations deceived the public by allegedly and knowingly misrepresenting the existence of credible evidence supporting their recommendations for these interventions. According to the complaint, the groups promoted a narrative of safety and efficacy that was not supported by rigorous data, while downplaying or ignoring mounting concerns about long-term harms.
Uthmeiers filings single out the AAP for particular criticism over its influential policy statement on gender treatments for minors. In that statement, the AAP concluded that puberty blockers are reversible and that gender-affirming care results in minors having fewer mental health concerns, assertions Uthmeier says are not grounded in sound science.
The attorney general further alleges that the AAPs policy statement was drafted and advanced by one person, a physician who was not considered a medical authority and was still in residency at the time. According to Uthmeier, this doctor was simultaneously launching a practice that consisted largely of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors, raising serious conflict-of-interest concerns.
Despite growing scrutiny from policymakers and a wave of European health authorities scaling back or restricting such treatments for minors, the AAP has refused to retract or substantially revise its policy statement. That refusal has persisted in the face of Uthmeiers lawsuit and what the group characterizes as government pressure to reconsider its stance.
Rather than confine the battle to Floridas courts, the AAPheadquartered in the Chicago suburbschose to go on offense in federal court in Illinois. It sued Uthmeier in Chicago, arguing that his Florida lawsuit amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to suppress the organizations speech on the contentious issue of child gender transitions.
Uthmeier moved to dismiss the AAPs federal action, warning that the lawsuit represented an unprecedented and constitutionally suspect effort to use a federal court in one state to block a state attorney general from enforcing his own states laws at home. From a conservative perspective, his argument went to the heart of federalism: whether unelected federal judges can preemptively strip a state of its power to police alleged fraud within its borders.
Judge Matthew Kennelly, however, sided with the AAP and granted an injunction against Uthmeier. He reasoned that the Florida lawsuits impact would be felt in Illinois, where the AAP is based, and therefore justified federal intervention to protect the groups asserted First Amendment rights.
Kennelly accepted the AAPs contention that the relief Uthmeier sought in Floridaan injunction to prevent the group from publishing anything supporting its position or collaborating with the other defendantswas not limited to conduct within Floridas borders. On that basis, he concluded that the Florida action was a bad faith attempt to chill the AAPs speech and thus warranted extraordinary federal court interference.
A divided three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit initially upheld Kennellys approach in a 21 decision. Judges David Hamilton and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has long instructed federal courts to almost always refrain from meddling in ongoing state-court proceedings.
Yet, siding with Kennelly, they held that Uthmeiers alleged bad faith prosecution justified an exception to that general rule. In their view, the supposed retaliatory nature of the Florida lawsuit meant that federal judges in Chicago were not overstepping by blocking Florida officials from using Florida courts to enforce Florida law.
The panels ruling drew a blistering dissent from Judge Michael Scudder, who warned that the majoritys opinion was a grievous blow to federalism with potentially grave and lasting consequences. Scudders critique echoed long-standing conservative concerns that liberal-leaning federal courts are increasingly willing to override state authority whenever progressive policy priorities are at stake.
Federalism, the principle at the core of the U.S. constitutional order, divides power between the national government and the 50 sovereign states, allowing each state to craft and enforce its own legal regime. For many conservatives, the idea that a federal court in Illinois could effectively shut down a Florida attorney generals consumer-fraud case against a private association is precisely the kind of judicial overreach the Framers sought to prevent.
The three-judge panel, however, did not have the final say. Uthmeier sought review by the full Seventh Circuit, asking all active judges on the court to reconsider the panels ruling and restore Floridas ability to pursue its case.
In a striking move, the full court not only vacated the panels decision and lifted Kennellys injunction, but also exercised rarely used authority to prevent both Kennelly and the original three-judge panel from rehearing the matter. Instead, a majority of the courts 11 judges ordered that the case remain with the full court in what is known as an initial en banc proceeding.
That unusual step drew dissent from five judges, underscoring the ideological divide on the court. The decision to seize direct jurisdiction signaled that a majority of the Seventh Circuit believed the case raised issues of exceptional importanceparticularly regarding the limits of federal power over state law enforcement.
Notably, every judge who had previously sided with the AAP or dissented from the full courts decision to take the case en banc was appointed by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden. That list includes Kennelly, Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi, and other dissenters such as John Z. Lee, Nancy Maldonado, and Doris Pryor, highlighting the partisan contours of the dispute over federalism and free speech.
The en banc majority did not issue a detailed explanation for its decision to assert direct control over the case at this stage. Nonetheless, the move was widely interpreted as a sign that the AAPs position faced serious headwinds and that the court was poised to rein in what many see as an aggressive attempt to insulate a powerful medical lobby from state-level accountability.
With the injunction lifted, Uthmeier promptly resumed his prosecution of the AAP in Florida state court. That development appears to have prompted a strategic reassessment by the AAP, which now seeks to retreat from the federal forum it had previously chosen.
In its motions to dismiss the Chicago lawsuit and to stay the Seventh Circuit appeal, the AAP claimed it was not prepared to fight Uthmeier on two fronts simultaneously. The filings do not explain why the organization initially accepted that risk when it decided to sue Uthmeier in Illinois while already defending itself in Florida.
The AAPs new position suggests that financial and logistical realities have caught up with its litigation strategy. The motions indicate that the organization could not afford to pay legal counsel to wage a two-front legal battle, a remarkable admission for a national professional association that has long wielded significant influence over pediatric policy.
Uthmeier has not yet filed his response to the AAPs latest motions. The Seventh Circuit has given him until July 27 to oppose the request for a stay, should he choose to do so.
According to the AAPs filings, Uthmeier has already signaled that he will resist the groups attempt to walk away from the Chicago case without consequence. The AAP says the attorney general will argue that their federal lawsuit was frivolous and that they should not be permitted to simply abandon it without paying Floridas legal fees.
That argument, if accepted, would send a clear message to advocacy groups and professional associations that forum-shopping and preemptive federal suits against state officials carry real financial risks. It would also reinforce the principle that state attorneys general retain broad authority to investigate and prosecute alleged deception, even when the targets are politically favored institutions advancing progressive causes.
The AAP is represented in the federal action by attorneys from Covington & Burling, based in Washington, D.C., and ArentFox Schiff, headquartered in Chicago. Both firms are known for their work on high-profile, politically charged cases, often aligning with liberal policy positions and institutional interests.
As the Seventh Circuit weighs the AAPs bid to exit the federal stage, the core questions remain squarely in view: whether a powerful medical association can avoid scrutiny for its role in promoting controversial treatments for children, and whether federal courts will continue to be used as shields against state-level enforcement of consumer-protection laws. For conservatives concerned about parental rights, medical transparency, and the erosion of federalism, the outcome of this fight will resonate far beyond the immediate parties, shaping how far states can go in challenging the medical and ideological establishment on one of the most contentious issues of our time.
Login