The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 22, 2026, to uphold a preliminary injunction that prevents Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier from pursuing a lawsuit against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). This decision is significant as it protects AAP's advocacy for gender-affirming care amidst allegations of bad faith from the state. The ruling affects not only AAP but also sets a precedent for how states can engage with organizations advocating for specific medical treatments.
The case, American Academy of Pediatrics v. James Uthmeier (Docket No. 26-2238), began when Uthmeier filed a lawsuit against AAP and two other organizations in Florida state court. He accused them of violating state laws related to deceptive practices and racketeering, claiming their support for gender-affirming care misled consumers. AAP responded by filing a federal lawsuit in Illinois, arguing that Uthmeier's actions were retaliatory and violated their First Amendment rights.
The dispute escalated when Uthmeier's initial complaint, filed in December 2025, accused the AAP of making false representations regarding gender-affirming treatments. He sought significant penalties and restrictions on AAP's operations. However, Uthmeier did not serve AAP with the complaint for over three months, leading AAP to seek federal protection against what they described as a bad faith lawsuit aimed at suppressing their speech.
The district court granted AAP a preliminary injunction, halting Uthmeier's state court action. Uthmeier appealed this decision, seeking a stay of the injunction while the appeal was considered. The Seventh Circuit, composed of Judges Hamilton, Scudder, and Jackson-Akiwumi, denied his request for a stay, emphasizing that the injunction raised serious federalism concerns but also highlighted the exception for cases brought in bad faith.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The district court made detailed findings indicating the Florida proceeding has been brought in bad faith, so that Younger abstention should not apply." This refers to the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally discourages federal courts from intervening in state matters unless there is evidence of bad faith or harassment. The court found that Uthmeier's actions, including his public statements about wanting to harm AAP financially, supported AAP's claims of retaliation.
The impact of this ruling is substantial. It reinforces the ability of organizations like AAP to advocate for medical practices without fear of retaliatory lawsuits from state officials. The court's decision also aligns with previous rulings from other circuits that have recognized the need to protect First Amendment rights against bad faith prosecutions.
Looking forward, the case could potentially be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, although no related cases are currently pending. The implications of this ruling may resonate beyond this specific case, influencing how states interact with organizations advocating for controversial medical treatments and potentially shaping future legal battles over First Amendment rights.