Dirksen Federal Courthouse, Chicago
CHICAGO — Faced with the prospect of a potential landmark appellate court ruling against them, the American Association of Pediatrics has moved to drop altogether their bid to use Chicago's federal courts to block Florida's state attorney general from using Florida's courts to press his claim the AAP violated a Florida state law by allegedly misleading the public about the safety of child gender transitions.
On July 22, the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) filed a motion in Chicago federal district court, asking a judge to allow them to voluntarily dismiss their action against Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.
At the same time, the AAP asked the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to put a hold on proceedings over Uthmeier's appeal in that case.
The filings come as the latest twist in a legal battle already marked by controversial and constitutionally questionable legal maneuvers and rulings alike.
The legal fight began in December 2025 in Florida state court when Uthmeier sued the AAP in St. Lucie County. The complaint also named two other organizations as defendants. Those included the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society.
In that lawsuit, Uthmeier accused the organizations of violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state's Racketeer Influence and (RICO) Act.
The Florida lawsuit accused the groups of deceiving the public by allegedly knowingly lying about "credible evidence" backing their recommendations supporting the use of puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones and gender transition surgeries for children.
In his filings, Uthmeier has particularly assailed the AAP for issuing a "policy statement" that concluded that "puberty blockers are 'reversible' and that gender-affirming care results in minors having fewer mental health concerns." Uthmeier asserts those claims are not backed by scientific evidence and the policy statement was allegedly drafted and advanced by one person, a doctor who was not considered a medical authority, but was still undergoing his residency at the time and was launching a practice that "consisted largely of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors."
The AAP has refused to retract the policy statement, despite government pressure and Uthmeier's lawsuit.
Instead, the AAP, which is based in Chicago's suburbs, sued Uthmeier in Chicago federal court, asserting Uthmeier's lawsuit is an unconstitutional attempt to suppress their speech concerning the controversy surrounding child gender transitions.
Uthmeier sought to dismiss the AAP's lawsuit, saying the action marked an unprecedented and constitutionally questionable attempt to use a federal court in one state to block a state attorney general from attempting to enforce his state's laws in that state's courts.
However, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly sided with the AAP, saying he believed an injunction was proper because the effect of Florida's lawsuit would be felt by the AAP, an organization in Illinois.
Kennelly said the convincing argument is that the relief Uthmeier seeks — an injunction to prevent the group from publishing anything supporting its position or collaborating with the other defendants — isn’t limited to what the group does in Florida.
Kennelly agreed with the AAP that the Florida action was a "bad faith" violation of the group's First Amendment rights.
That view was supported in a 2-1 decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
In that ruling, Seventh Circuit judges David Hamilton and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi noted federal courts are commanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to almost always avoid getting involved in state court disputes. But supporting Kennelly, they said Uthmeier's "bad faith" meant Chicago federal judges were not out of bounds to block Florida state officials from using Florida state courts to enforce Florida state law.
The ruling, however, drew a sharp rebuke from the third member of the panel, Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, who called the majority opinion "a grievous blow to federalism" that would have lasting and "grave" repercussions, if allowed to stand.
Federalism is the central principle of the U.S. constitutional system, which balances the powers of the central federal government against those of the 50 sovereign U.S. states, permitting states to make and enforce their own unique laws.
The panel, however, did not have the last word.
Uthmeier appealed to the full Seventh Circuit.
There, Scudder's position appeared to hold sway, as the full court not only voided the three-judge panel's ruling, and not only blocked Kennelly's injunction, but also invoked rarely used powers to refuse to allow neither Kennelly nor the three-judge panel to rehear the case at all.
Rather, a majority of the full complement of 11 judges ordered the case to remain before them, in a so-called initial en banc proceeding.
That decision drew dissent from five judges.
All of the judges involved in the case who sided with AAP or dissented from the initial en banc decision, including Kennelly, Hamilton, Jackson-Akiwumi and the other dissenters, including John Z. Lee, Nancy Maldonaldo and Doris Pryor were appointed by Democratic former presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The majority on the Seventh Circuit did not explain their decision to grab direct jurisdiction over the case. However, the move signaled significant peril for the AAP's case.
In the meantime, Uthmeier immediately resumed pressing his claims against the AAP in Florida state court.
And the AAP apparently decided it did not wish to continue its action against Uthmeier in Chicago court, at least in its current position.
In their motions asking Kennelly to dismiss their lawsuit and asking the Seventh Circuit to pause the appeal, the AAP asserted it was not prepared to fight Uthmeier in two courts at the same time. Their motions do not explain why the AAP initially was willing to risk just that outcome by filing suit against Uthmeier in Chicago federal court while they were also being sued in Florida.
The motions, however, indicate the AAP could not afford to pay legal counsel to wage a two-front legal battle.
Uthmeier has not yet responded to any of the motions. The Seventh Circuit gave him until July 27 to file a motion opposing the motion, if he wishes.
In their motions to dismiss and stay, the AAP said Uthmeier has indicated he will oppose their attempts to end their Chicago case. The AAP indicated Uthmeier will argue their lawsuit was frivolous and they should nto be allowed to simply abandon their case without paying legal fees to the state of Florida.
The AAP is represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of Covington & Burling, of Washington, D.C., and ArentFox Schiff, o Chicago.
