The court ruled that such a ban on the “promotion of gender ideology” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” ran clearly afoul of equal protection on transgender status and also violated the separation of powers which provided their funding: “As one other court considering the Gender Order explained, the Court “cannot fathom discrimination more direct than the plain pronouncement of a policy resting on the premise that the group to which the policy is directed does not exist.” PFLAG II, 2025 WL 685124, at *23.”

They ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination while stating that it is also likely unconstitutional by violating the separation of powers. The latter is just a supporting point made in the ruling.

To get an injunction blocking a law in advance of the full case, the moving party must demonstrate both irreparable harm, and a likelihood to succeed on the merits of the case.

If you read about federal court cases in 2025 you'll hear the word "likely" a lot. That is a sign the court is deciding whether to block an action at the beginning of a case. The courts can only act quickly with a lower standard of proof. "Likelihood to succeed on the merits," is that lower, expedited standard.