{"schema_version":1,"citation_url":"https://567politics.com/news/opm-gender-transition-coverage-ban-doe-v-kupor-injunction-class-november-2026","title":"Transgender feds ask a judge to stop OPM's 2027 ban on hormone and surgery coverage before January","description":"Two employees in Doe v. Kupor seek a class-wide injunction before plans renew. OPM, citing Skrmetti, says their Title VII claim should be dismissed.","author":"567 Politics staff","publisher":"567politics","date_published":"2026-11-11T00:09:15.767866Z","date_modified":"2026-11-11T00:11:07.970411Z","body_markdown":"Two transgender federal employees asked a federal judge in Washington on November 4 to block a 2027 rule from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The rule bars every federal employee health plan from covering hormone therapy and surgery for gender transition. They also asked him to extend that relief to a nationwide class. The request in *Doe v. Kupor* comes less than two months before the 2027 plan year begins. If granted, it would require insurers to handle these claims under ordinary plan terms in 2027. It also puts a direct question to U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta: does a benefits rule written around \"gender transition\" discriminate \"because of sex\" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? OPM says no. In a [joint scheduling filing on November 6](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146.29.0.pdf), government lawyers wrote that they will argue the claim is \"not only unlikely to succeed, but also subject to dismissal, in light of United States v. Skrmetti.\" The Supreme Court decided that 2025 case under the Equal Protection Clause, not Title VII.\n\nThe judge has not ruled, and neither side's full merits brief on the injunction is in yet. This article explains how the policy works, how many people it may reach, each side's legal and medical arguments, and the briefing schedule that will decide whether a ruling comes before January.\n\n## What the plaintiffs are asking the court to do\n\nThe motion for a preliminary injunction was filed by Charlotte Coe and Vanessa Voe, two of the six pseudonymous plaintiffs named in the [amended complaint](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146.21.0.pdf) of November 2. It asks the court to bar OPM from enforcing what the filing calls \"the 2027 Exclusion\" and to require OPM to \"direct carriers to administer coverage\" under \"otherwise applicable, nondiscriminatory plan terms,\" according to the [motion](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146.26.0.pdf). That would not guarantee payment for any particular treatment. Insurers would still apply their usual medical-necessity reviews.\n\nA companion [motion for provisional class certification](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146.28.0.pdf) asks the court to apply any injunction to a nationwide class. It would cover federal employees and retirees enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) or Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs in 2027 who have been or will be prescribed this care for themselves or a covered dependent. Their coverage must also be excluded under OPM's 2027 call letter. Government counsel told the plaintiffs that OPM opposes both motions, according to footnotes in each filing.\n\nThe plaintiffs also asked the court to waive the bond that normally accompanies an injunction, or to set it at $1. They argue that a large bond \"would thwart Plaintiffs' ability to afford their healthcare.\"\n\nThe timing is driven by open season. OPM's [2027 open season guide](https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/open-season/agency-benefits-officers/housing-for-os-materials/2026-federal-benefits-open-season-highlights-for-plan-year-2027.pdf) sets enrollment from November 9 through December 14, 2026. Outside that window, enrollees generally cannot change plans without a qualifying life event. The motion says the 2027 plan year begins January 1 for PSHB enrollees and January 10 for FEHB enrollees. Because the exclusion applies to every participating carrier, switching plans during open season cannot restore coverage.\n\n## How OPM's coverage rule changed in three letters\n\nOPM sets the terms that private insurers must follow in the two programs through carrier letters. Congress gave the agency broad authority to include \"such maximums, limitations, exclusions, and other definitions of benefits as the Office considers necessary or desirable\" under 5 U.S.C. § 8902(d), a provision quoted in an [EEOC decision](https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/0120172750%200120172751%202020000643%202021005019%20decision_Redacted_0.pdf) discussed below.\n\nThe policy changed in steps. On January 20, 2025, President [Donald Trump](/politicians/donald-trump) signed [Executive Order 14168](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500135/pdf/DCPD-202500135.pdf), which declares it \"the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.\" The order states that \"these sexes are not changeable\" and directs agencies to \"end the Federal funding of gender ideology.\" Eight days later, [Executive Order 14187](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-02-03/pdf/2025-02194.pdf) directed the OPM director to write into the 2026 call letter that carriers \"will exclude coverage for pediatric transgender surgeries or hormone treatments,\" with \"child\" defined as anyone under 19.\n\nAccording to the plaintiffs' motion, OPM's first follow-up letter, Carrier Letter 2025-01a of January 31, 2025, said \"two recently issued Executive Orders of President Trump have prompted this Addendum.\" It barred coverage for people under 19 and made adult coverage optional for carriers.\n\n[Carrier Letter 2025-01b](https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/carriers/fehb/2025/2025-01b.pdf), signed August 15, 2025, by D. Shane Stevens, OPM's associate director for healthcare and insurance, went further. \"For Plan Year 2026, chemical and surgical modification of an individual's sex traits through medical interventions (to include 'gender transition' services) will no longer be covered under the FEHB or PSHB Programs,\" it says, adding that the exclusion \"applies regardless of age.\" It kept three carve-outs. Counseling for gender dysphoria must still be covered, including by providers \"who provide faith-based counseling.\" Carriers had to run a case-by-case exceptions process for enrollees \"mid-treatment within a surgical and/or hormonal regimen.\" And carriers were told not to exclude whole drug classes, since medicines such as GnRH agonists are also prescribed \"during IVF, for reduction of endometriosis or fibroids, and for cancer treatment.\"\n\nThe third step, the 2027 call letter, [Carrier Letter 2026-07](https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/carriers/fehb/2026/2026-07.pdf) of March 31, 2026, is the one now before the court. Under the heading \"Sex Rejection Treatments,\" it says that \"beginning in the 2027 Plan Year, Carriers must remove any exceptions process\" for members who are mid-treatment. Counseling remains covered. The letter also states that \"unless otherwise specified, previous guidance remains in force,\" which carries the 2026 exclusion forward.\n\n```diagram\ntype: timeline\ntitle: OPM's gender-transition coverage exclusion, from executive order to court\nsource: [EO 14168](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500135/pdf/DCPD-202500135.pdf), [EO 14187](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-02-03/pdf/2025-02194.pdf), [CL 2025-01b](https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/carriers/fehb/2025/2025-01b.pdf), [CL 2026-07](https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/carriers/fehb/2026/2026-07.pdf), [Doe v. Kupor filings](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146/gov.uscourts.dcd.295146.29.0.pdf), [OPM open season guide](https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/open-season/agency-benefits-officers/housing-for-os-materials/2026-federal-benefits-open-season-highlights-for-plan-year-2027.pdf)\n---\nJan 20, 2025: Executive Order 14168 defines sex as immutable and tells agencies to end funding of \"gender ideology\"\nJan 28, 2025: Executive Order 14187 orders a 2026 FEHB/PSHB exclusion for under-19s\nAug 15, 2025: Carrier Letter 2025-01b extends the exclusion to all ages, with a mid-treatment exception\nJan 1, 2026: The all-ages exclusion takes effect for the 2026 plan year\nMar 2026: EEOC rules 2-1 that OPM's earlier 2015 FEHB policy did not violate Title VII\nMar 31, 2026: Carrier Letter 2026-07 orders carriers to drop the exceptions process for 2027\nAug 3, 2026: Five federal employees file Doe v. Kupor as a proposed class action\nNov 4, 2026: Coe and Voe move for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification\nNov 9 to Dec 14, 2026: Open season for 2027 plans\nNov 25, 2026: Government response due under both sides' proposed schedules\nJan 1 and Jan 10, 2027: 2027 plan year begins for PSHB and FEHB enrollees\n```\n\n## The two plaintiffs at the center of the motion\n\nThe motion rests on sworn declarations from the two movants, filed under pseudonyms the court approved. Coe has worked for the federal government for eight years and is an IT specialist at the State Department, according to the motion. After a 2025 vaginoplasty, she developed a lesion that \"repeatedly reopens with pressure or friction,\" and her surgeon has recommended corrective surgery. The filing says the surgeon's practice \"will not perform the surgery without insurance coverage\" and that she understands the procedure \"could cost tens of thousands of dollars.\" It also says she has paid \"thousands of dollars out-of-pocket\" during 2026.\n\nVoe joined the federal workforce in August 2026 as a researcher at what the motion calls the Department of War. She enrolled in an FEHB plan in September and, according to the filing, lost coverage for care she had previously received under other insurance. Her prescribed hormone therapy costs about $2,500 a year, and she expects to ration it and skip monitoring blood tests in 2027. The motion says both women \"no longer produce sex hormones,\" so stopping treatment carries physical risks, including loss of bone density, along with psychological harms described by Voe's treating nurse practitioner.\n\nOther putative class members describe similar situations in declarations summarized in the motion. One FEHB enrollee says she is stockpiling estrogen by using vials past their recommended 28-day limit. Another, a nurse who cares for veterans, says she took a pay cut to get FEHB coverage for her adult daughter. A third puts the cost of a planned surgery at about $100,000. These are sworn accounts from people backing the plaintiffs' motion. The government has not yet answered them, and the court has made no findings about them.\n\n## How many people the exclusion reaches\n\nNo official count exists of transgender people covered by the two programs. The plaintiffs rely on a July 2026 [Williams Institute brief](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/FEHB-Trans-Impact-Jul-2026.pdf) by Jody L. Herman and Elana Redfield, which Herman also submitted as a sworn declaration. The brief estimates that at least 39,400 people who identify as transgender are covered by FEHB, in a range up to 57,800. It produces those figures from three separate models, which use different data and assumptions.\n\n```chart\ntype: bar\ntitle: Estimated transgender people covered by FEHB, by Williams Institute model\nnote: Employees, retirees and dependents. Each model uses different data and assumptions; these are estimates, not counts, and not the number seeking care.\nsource: [Williams Institute, July 2026](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/FEHB-Trans-Impact-Jul-2026.pdf)\n---\nModel | Estimated people\nModel 1: U.S. population rates applied to 8.3 million enrollees | 45,650\nModel 2: 2023 federal workforce survey (0.6% of employees) | 39,400\nModel 3: 2022 U.S. Trans Survey employment data | 57,800\n```\n\nThe estimates have limits that the authors acknowledge. They count people who identify as transgender, not people who seek or have been denied hormone therapy or surgery, so the number directly affected is likely smaller. Model 3 relies on a large survey that \"was drawn using non-probability sampling\" and \"may not be representative.\" All three models also rely on a 2016 Congressional Research Service breakdown of enrollees (25% employees, 25% retirees, 50% dependents), because the authors \"were unable to find a comparable analysis using more recent OPM data.\" Model 2 depends on a gender-identity question that the brief says the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey has since dropped under Executive Order 14168. [Government Executive](https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2026/11/feds-urge-judge-block-opm-gender-affirming-care-ban/417159/) rounded the range to between 40,000 and 60,000 in its November 10 report.\n\nOPM has not published its own estimate of how many enrollees used the 2026 exceptions process or what the excluded care cost the programs. This article found no such figure in the carrier letters or OPM's public statements.\n\n## The plaintiffs' Title VII argument\n\nTitle VII bars federal agencies from discriminating because of sex in \"compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,\" and, as the motion notes, the Supreme Court held in *Newport News Shipbuilding v. EEOC* (1983) that health insurance is part of that compensation. The plaintiffs' central argument relies on [Bostock v. Clayton County](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf), the 2020 decision holding that firing someone for being transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII.\n\nThey argue the exclusion fails Bostock's test because it cannot be applied without reference to sex. \"Consider a woman seeking hormone treatment to develop feminine physical characteristics,\" the motion says. \"If she was assigned male at birth, OPM considers that care a part of gender transition and bars coverage. If she was assigned female at birth, that exclusion does not apply.\" They point to OPM's own instruction that the same drugs stay covered for fertility, endometriosis and cancer, and to FEHB brochures that cover breast implants after mastectomy and penile prostheses for erectile dysfunction. In their view, these show that \"what places a medication within the exclusion is its use to change an employee's sex traits as part of gender transition.\"\n\nThey make a second, independent argument based on sex stereotyping. They say the executive orders that prompted OPM's letters describe transgender identity as a \"false claim,\" and that the exclusion penalizes employees who depart from \"the expectation that employees should retain the physical characteristics associated with their sex assigned at birth.\" For support they cite *Talbott v. United States*, a 2026 D.C. Circuit ruling against the military's transgender service policy. That case is now before the Supreme Court, as 567politics reported in its coverage of the [Marine Corps separations](/news/marine-corps-ends-service-extensions-transgender-separations-talbott-supreme-court-november-2026).\n\nThe plaintiffs also argue that the policy lacks a medical rationale. Neither the 2026 nor the 2027 letter, they write, \"cites a single medical study or clinical finding.\" They cite the [American Medical Association's policy H-185.927](https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/H-185.927?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD-185.927.xml), which \"recognizes that medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria and gender incongruence, as determined by shared decision making between the patient and physician, are medically necessary\" and commits the AMA to advocate for \"equitable, evidence-based coverage\" by public and private insurers. They also cite the Endocrine Society's 2017 guideline, World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards, a randomized trial of early testosterone access and a study of nearly 20,000 survey respondents that associated surgery with lower odds of severe psychological distress.\n\nThe lawyers bringing the case are from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. When the suit was filed in August, HRC Foundation president Kelley Robinson said in a [statement](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/well-see-you-in-court-human-rights-campaign-foundation-files-class-action-in-federal-court-against-trump-administrations-opm) that \"healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination.\" Cathy Harris of Correia & Puth said, \"We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation's dedicated civil servants.\"\n\n## OPM's position: stewardship, \"biological reality\" and Skrmetti\n\nOPM has not issued a public statement on the November motions, and its opposition brief is not yet filed. Its position can be read in three places: the joint filing, a March 2026 news release and the EEOC decision OPM welcomed in that release.\n\nIn the joint filing, the Justice Department's Federal Programs Branch said it will file a single brief opposing the injunction and moving to dismiss the case. It plans to argue that the Title VII claim fails \"in light of United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025).\" It also argued that \"any delay is Plaintiffs' own doing.\" The policies were adopted between January 2025 and March 31, 2026, the government noted, and the plaintiffs sued in August but \"did not move for preliminary relief until two days ago.\" The plaintiffs answered that their motion followed new harms, including Voe's August hiring and Coe's recent complication.\n\nOPM described its rationale in a [March 26, 2026 news release](https://www.opm.gov/news/news-releases/court-backs-opm-policy-funding-gender-transition/) titled \"Court Backs OPM Policy Protecting Taxpayers From Funding Gender Transition Procedures.\" The release says the decision affirmed OPM's authority \"to establish coverage standards that balance program sustainability, legal requirements, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, along with the biological reality of sex differences.\" Stevens is quoted saying that \"federal health benefits must be administered in a way that is fiscally responsible, legally sound, delivers high-quality care, and works toward improved health outcomes.\" Despite the headline, the ruling came from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an executive-branch agency that decides federal employees' discrimination appeals. It was not a court.\n\nThat decision, [*Sam T. v. OPM*](https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/0120172750%200120172751%202020000643%202021005019%20decision_Redacted_0.pdf), set out the legal theory OPM is expected to press. The EEOC's [March 2026 vote log](https://www.eeoc.gov/commission-votes-march-2026) shows it was approved 2-1, with Commissioners Lucas and Panuccio in favor and Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal against. It addressed OPM's older 2015 policy, which let carriers decide how much of this care to cover, not the 2026 blanket exclusion. Even so, the majority's reasoning reaches the same question. It overruled the commission's own 2024 *Lawrence* decision, which had held a coverage exclusion to be \"an impermissible, sex-based rule for allocating employment benefits.\" The majority said that \"Skrmetti is binding precedent, and when applied here it requires overruling Lawrence.\"\n\nThe majority ran Bostock's test and reached the opposite answer from the plaintiffs. \"Consider a female employee who is denied coverage for an elective mastectomy for the purposes of sex-rejection,\" it wrote. \"If the employee's sex is changed to male, they are still denied coverage for the procedure for lack of a qualifying diagnosis, such as breast cancer or gynecomastia.\" It added that \"it is not inherently suspicious for a health insurance plan to make distinctions based on medical diagnosis and treatment purposes.\" The decision uses the administration's terms, \"trans-identifying\" and \"sex-rejecting.\" On the disability claims, it found that OPM \"acted carefully and rationally as it sought to balance costs, medical needs, and other actuarial considerations.\"\n\nThe government also has appellate support. In September 2025, the full Eleventh Circuit held in *Lange v. Houston County* that a county health plan's exclusion of gender-transition surgery did not facially violate Title VII, relying heavily on Skrmetti, according to a [summary by the employer-side firm Littler](https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/denial-gender-affirming-care-does-not-qualify-sex-discrimination-eleventh). The Eleventh Circuit's rulings do not bind courts in the District of Columbia, but judges there may consider them.\n\n## Why Skrmetti is the pivot\n\n[United States v. Skrmetti](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf) upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormones for minors with gender dysphoria under the Equal Protection Clause. The majority said the law classified by age and medical use, not by sex. On Bostock, the Court was explicit: \"We have not yet considered whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here.\" It then reasoned that a transgender boy denied testosterone would still be denied it if his sex were changed, because \"he would lack a qualifying diagnosis.\"\n\nThat passage supports both sides. The plaintiffs say it confirms that Bostock governs Title VII cases, and that theirs \"is squarely within the confines of Bostock\" because it is a Title VII claim. They warn that borrowing an equal-protection analysis repeats the error the Supreme Court acknowledged in *Newport News* (1983), after Congress rejected an earlier ruling that had used equal-protection reasoning to uphold a pregnancy exclusion in an employee benefits plan. OPM's side reads the same passage as a ruling on causation that carries over to Title VII: if the diagnosis, not the sex, decides coverage, sex is not the but-for cause.\n\nThe disagreement is less about logic than about framing. Both sides apply Bostock's \"change the sex and see if the outcome changes\" test. The plaintiffs hold the treatment's *goal* constant (developing feminine traits) and change the sex, which changes the outcome. The EEOC majority holds the *diagnosis* constant (no qualifying condition such as cancer) and changes the sex, which does not. Neither side is committing a formal fallacy. They disagree over which features count as the \"similarly situated\" baseline, and that is the question Judge Mehta will have to answer. Kotagal's dissent took the plaintiffs' framing. In a [statement](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kalpana-kotagal-26998b72_kotagal-statement-re-sam-t-v-kupor-activity-7443011790076076032-1WQ7) posted with it, she wrote that \"the majority has ignored that Congress rejected applying Equal Protection jurisprudence to sex discrimination claims under Title VII\" and that \"Skrmetti does not apply to Title VII.\"\n\nThe same dispute over Skrmetti's reach is playing out across federal policy. The Justice Department relied on it when the Supreme Court sent a transgender jail-housing case [back to the Tenth Circuit](/news/supreme-court-roybal-v-griffith-transgender-jail-housing-remand-november-2026). It is also part of the argument in New Hampshire over a [Medicaid rule ending federal funding for minors' care](/news/goe-v-hhs-medicaid-gender-care-rule-new-hampshire-mcauliffe-november-2026), where the government says it is only deciding \"what taxpayers pay for.\" The EEOC's disability reasoning parallels a [new HHS rule excluding gender dysphoria from Section 504](/news/hhs-section-504-gender-dysphoria-final-rule-federal-register-november-2026).\n\n## The medical evidence dispute, and what the HHS review covers\n\nThe administration and its supporters point to evidence reviews that rate the research base for this care as weak. The most prominent is HHS's [Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria](https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf), commissioned under Executive Order 14187 and revised November 19, 2025. Its umbrella review found that \"the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.\" In the [HHS release](https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-releases-peer-reviewed-report-discrediting-pediatric-sex-rejecting-procedures.html), Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said medical associations had \"betrayed their oath to first do no harm.\" HHS said the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society declined invitations to contribute.\n\nThat review has a limit that matters for this case: \"Treatment of adults constitutes a separate topic and is not addressed in this Review.\" The class here is made up of employees, retirees and their dependents, and both movants are adults. The plaintiffs note that neither the 2026 nor the 2027 carrier letter cites the HHS review. OPM has not publicly cited an adult-specific evidence review to support the exclusion.\n\nCritics of adult transition care point to other studies. The Manhattan Institute's gender policy newsletter, for example, [highlighted a Journal of Sexual Medicine paper](https://manhattan.institute/article/rising-legal-and-medical-debate-on-gender-treatments) associating surgery in adults with higher rates of later depression and anxiety diagnoses. The same newsletter noted that the authors apparently did not control for baseline mental health and that \"no causal claims about the direction of associations can be made.\" The studies the plaintiffs cite are also observational, apart from the three-month testosterone trial. Neither body of evidence settles the Title VII question, which turns on how the rule classifies people, not on whether the treatment works.\n\n## The schedule and the open-season problem\n\nThe parties disagree about the schedule, and the court had not adopted either proposal as of the latest available docket entries. Both proposals have OPM file its opposition on November 25. The plaintiffs want to reply by December 9, with a separate brief on the motion to dismiss due December 16. The government wants a single plaintiffs' brief on December 14 and a final government reply on January 6, 2027. It said its schedule would still leave \"about two and a half weeks to rule before January 1, 2027, if the Court is inclined to rule on the timeline Plaintiffs request.\" It also offered to postpone class certification until after the injunction ruling, which the plaintiffs declined.\n\nWhichever schedule the court picks, open season ends before briefing does. Enrollees will choose 2027 plans by December 14 without knowing whether any of them will be allowed to cover this care. If Judge Mehta denies the injunction, the exclusion takes effect in January with no exceptions. If he grants it class-wide, OPM would have to tell every participating carrier to process these claims under ordinary plan terms while the case continues, and an appeal to the D.C. Circuit would likely follow. The four other named plaintiffs, who include a Postal Service employee whose transgender daughter is covered as a dependent, are not part of the November motions. The amended complaint also seeks damages for out-of-pocket costs on behalf of a separate class.\n\nSeveral questions remain open. OPM has not said how many enrollees received exceptions in 2026 or what the excluded services cost the programs. It has not publicly explained why it ended the mid-treatment exception. And the D.C. Circuit has not said whether Skrmetti changes how Title VII applies to employee benefits.","link_base":"https://567politics.com/news/opm-gender-transition-coverage-ban-doe-v-kupor-injunction-class-november-2026","citation_guidance":"Cite citation_url. Preserve source links, dates and qualifications. date_modified is an edit date, not proof that every claim was rechecked. Third-party images and quoted material retain their own rights."}