The Trump admin went so far Thursday night that even Judge Reed O'Connor put a case on hold

O'Connor has been very receptive to the Trump admin and its anti-trans efforts, but an FTC request to him is now on hold after "consultation" with Judge James Boasberg in D.C.

Jul 04, 2026

The Trump administration apparently found a way to go so far afield of appropriate litigation tactics that even U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor has agreed to put a case before him on hold.

In a late-night filing on Thursday, Federal Trade Commission lawyers, joined by lawyers from Texas and Iowa, asked O’Connor to issue an extraordinary and manipulative order in the FTC’s lawsuit targeting the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, Inc. (WPATH) for what they claim are its “deceptive practices” regarding the provision of gender-affirming care for minors.

The Thursday night request sought an order from O’Connor — a far-right George W. Bush appointee in the Northern District of Texas — barring WPATH from “seeking relief in this matter from courts other than this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.“

It was a blatant effort to make an end-run around another court and another case involving WPATH and the FTC, before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C.

By Friday afternoon, however, O’Connor announced that his consideration of the FTC’s request was on hold following “consultation” that O’Connor held with Boasberg.

What is going on?

O’Connor issued a similar order earlier this year to the one requested by the FTC on Thursday, in conjunction with the challenge to DOJ’s administrative subpoena issued against Rhode Island Hospital. There, the order was absurd, but it did at least follow a factual scenario — as bad as it was — where the initial litigation in the case about the Rhode Island hospital was in Texas.

This time, however, WPATH had filed its own lawsuit against the FTC in February. The case was filed in D.C. — where the FTC is headquartered — and the case was assigned Boasberg, an Obama appointee.

The FTC’s lawsuit, on the other hand, wasn’t filed in the Northern District of Texas until June 17 — more than a month after Boasberg had issued a preliminary injunction and associated opinion in the WPATH-brought case.

Because of that, on June 30, WPATH filed a motion (and memorandum of law) before Boasberg seeking to block the FTC “from litigating the claims asserted in FTC v. WPATH, 4:26-cv-748-O (N.D. Tex.), except as mandatory counterclaims brought before this Court.“ As part of that filing, in discussing other grand jury subpoenas issued relating to gender-affirming care, one of WPATH’s lawyers acknowledged that one of its members had received a grand jury subpoena out of the Northern District of Texas on June 16 — the day before the filing of the FTC’s lawsuit there but still well after the initial injunction in the case before Boasberg.

Following that June 30 filing, the parties conferred and submitted a proposed briefing schedule, which Boasberg approved on Thursday.

MINUTE ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the parties' 48 Proposed Briefing Schedule in large part and ORDERS that: 1) Defendants shall file their Opposition to Plaintiff's 45 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by July 6, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.; 2) Plaintiff shall file its Reply by July 8, 2026 at 12:00 p.m.; and 3) The parties shall appear for oral argument on Plaintiff's 45 Motion on July 9, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on July 2, 2026. (Icjeb3) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

This is where the FTC lawyers went awry (beyond their whole anti-trans investigation being awry), asking O’Connor to, in effect, retroactively bar consideration of the request pending before Boasberg with his own jurisdiction-stripping temporary restraining order.

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs the Federal Trade Commission, Texas, and Iowa hereby move this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to restrain and enjoin Defendants from seeking relief in this matter from courts other than this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

Here are the FTC lawyers who signed this motion and memorandum of law:

Dated: July 2, 2026 Of Counsel Jonathan Cohen Chief Litigation Counsel District of Columbia Bar No. 483454* Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael Dingman Michael Dingman Senior Counsel to the Director District of Columbia Bar No. 90001474* R. Cooper Vaughan Senior Counsel to the Director Virginia State Bar No. 92580 Glenna Goldis Assistant Director for Special Projects New York Reg. No. 4868600* Hans Clausen Attorney Georgia Bar No. 153250* Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection

O’Connor quickly ordered a response by July 6 and set the matter for a hearing on July 7.

WPATH’s lawyers, led by Abbe Lowell, did not wait. Instead, they immediately went to Boasberg, informing him of what happened and seeking their own emergency TRO.

PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF PENDING MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER At 9:26 p.m. ET, counsel for Defendant the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") sent Plaintiff World Professional Association for Transgender Health's ("WATH") undersigned counsel an email (Exhibit 1) attaching a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against WPATH (Exhibit 2) in the matter pending before the Northern District of Texas, FTC v. WPATH, 4:26-cv-748-0, ECF No. 33 (N.D. Tex. July 2, 2026). The FIC's motion, which it apparently filed after hours on the night before a federal holiday, seeks to bar WPATH from further litigating the motion for a TRO and Antisuit Injunction it filed in this suit on June 30, 2026. More troubling

is that, just one day earlier, these same FTC attorneys, following this Court's Order, met and conferred with WPATH's counsel to establish a scheduling order for this Court to consider WPATH's pending motion. See ECF No 48. At no time during the meet and confer, nor afterwards when an agreed-upon schedule was submitted to this Court, nor when the Court issued its Order, did the FTC inform WPATH or this Court of its plan to make this extraordinary filing. Specifically, the FTC did not provide any notice that it would take another action to circumvent this Court's jurisdiction and to deprive this Court of its ability to hear the TRO motion this Court scheduled for a hearing next week (which included giving the FTC a fair opportunity to oppose). In fact, the relief WPATH is seeking in its pending TRO motion in this Court, if granted, would prevent the FTC from doing exactly what it did tonight. Instead, the FTC capitalized on the schedule it suggested (and the Court expected to be followed) to further undermine this Court's jurisdiction.

The WPATH lawyers then — still on Thursday — informed O’Connor of the filing in D.C.

All of that brought us to Friday’s developments. In a pair of orders from O’Connor and Boasberg, “in consultation,” it was made clear that the FTC’s legal shenanigans failed — at least for now.

O’Connor cancelled the July 7 hearing on the FTC’s TRO request and will not be considering it further until after the parties “file a status report … following a ruling by Chief Judge Boasberg.“

ELECTRONIC ORDER: After consultation with Chief Judge Boasberg (D.D.C.), the Court defers ruling on the pending Motion for TRO (ECF No. 33) to permit an orderly consideration of the pending injunction requests filed in NDTX and DDC. Defendants shall file their brief as directed but the hearing scheduled for July 7, 2026, is cancelled. The parties are directed to file a status report on the docket of this case following a ruling by Chief Judge Boasberg. (Ordered by Chief District Judge Reed O'Connor on 7/3/2026) (Chief District Judge Reed O'Connor) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

Boasberg then denied WPATH’s emergency TRO request as moot given O’Connor’s agreement.

MINUTE ORDER: After consultation with Chief Judge OConnor (N.D. Tex.), the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's 50 A Motion is DENIED as moot. The parties shall comply with the previously ordered briefing schedule and hearing date set in this case. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on July 3, 2026. (Icjeb3) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

The hearing on WPATH’s original June 30 TRO request — seeking an order barring the FTC case will remain as scheduled for Thursday, July 9.

Now, it’s important not to read too much into this. It’s entirely possible that the “consultation” here included Boasberg telling O’Connor he had a TRO ready to sign to deal with the FTC’s shenanigans and O’Connor’s agreement, essentially, just prevented that. But, O’Connor did go a step further by agreeing to let Boasberg rule on WPATH’s request pending in D.C. — that could have the effect of preventing the FTC’s case to proceed before him at all — before he moves forward with the FTC’s case.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?