San Diego judge weighs Rady Children’s counterclaims as state seeks restoration of youth gender-affirming care
A fast-moving legal fight over pediatric gender-affirming care in San Diego
A San Diego Superior Court judge is weighing a set of counterclaims in the high-stakes dispute over Rady Children’s Health’s decision to end gender-affirming medical care for patients under 19. The counterclaims come as California presses for a court order requiring the hospital system to continue offering services that it announced would stop on Feb. 6, 2026.
The case is unfolding against an unusually tight timeline. After the state filed suit on Jan. 30, 2026, Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner ordered Rady to continue providing care for several additional days, setting a further hearing for Feb. 10, 2026 to determine next steps.
What the state is asking the court to do
California’s lawsuit argues that Rady’s move violates legally binding conditions attached to a merger involving Rady and the Children’s Hospital of Orange County and affiliates. Those conditions, approved in November 2024, required Rady to maintain existing levels of specialty services — including gender-affirming care — through 2034, unless the attorney general approved a reduction or elimination.
The state is seeking injunctive relief that would require Rady to restore and maintain the same types and levels of gender-affirming care that existed when the merger took effect in January 2025. The complaint also seeks civil penalties and other court-ordered remedies under California law.
Rady’s stated rationale and the risk it says it faces
Rady has said it is ending gender-affirming medical interventions, procedures and prescriptions for minors in response to “escalating federal actions,” describing the potential for federal scrutiny as a threat to its ability to continue serving pediatric patients broadly. In court, the judge discussed competing risks raised by both sides, including the possibility that federal action could jeopardize the hospital’s ability to operate if it continues care, and the immediate disruption to patients if services stop.
What is known about the counterclaims under review
The judge’s consideration of counterclaims signals that Rady is not only defending against the state’s case but also advancing its own legal demands within the same litigation. The details of those counterclaims and the legal theories behind them are central to what the court may decide next, including whether any court-ordered solution is feasible while the hospital cites federal exposure.
Key dates and issues now before the court
Jan. 20, 2026: Rady notified patients that gender-affirming care for those under 19 would end effective Feb. 6.
Jan. 30, 2026: California filed suit seeking to compel continuation of services under merger conditions.
Feb. 6, 2026: The court ordered Rady to continue care temporarily rather than halt services that day.
Feb. 10, 2026: A hearing was set for the judge to decide what happens next.
The court is being asked to reconcile merger-enforcement claims, patient access concerns, and the hospital’s assertions of federal jeopardy, while determining whether emergency relief is warranted.
The outcome could shape not only whether services resume or remain paused for minors, but also how California enforces healthcare access obligations tied to large hospital mergers.