|
Update on Health Equity Litigation
Do No Harm v. The University of Pennsylvania
On March 18, 2025, Do No Harm, a nonprofit legal organization that seeks to protect “healthcare from the disastrous consequences of identity politics,” filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania claiming that the University of Pennsylvania Health System, the Perelman School of Medicine, the University of Pennsylvania, and other defendants violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act by creating and disseminating the Black Doctors Directory. The directory, which lists Black physicians in southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, was created to make it easier for Black patients to find physicians whose experiences are more likely to enable them to provide culturally competent care.
In recent years, Do No Harm has filed several lawsuits against medical schools and hospitals. Most have targeted programs or policies that seek to increase diversity within medicine, for example, by establishing fellowships for underrepresented students. The case against the University of Pennsylvania goes further by arguing that the creation and distribution of a list intended to provide information to patients is illegal.
The case, which was filed shortly after the Trump Administration announced it was suspending $175 million in federal funds from the University of Pennsylvania due to its policies regarding trans athletes, marks a further escalation in the legal fight against health equity initiatives. Although the case may be resolved in a number of ways, a decision on the merits will likely have to consider the tension between the defendants’ First Amendment rights and the defendants’ reverse discrimination claims.
Bans on Gender Affirming Care
In 2023, the state of Ohio banned pharmaceutical and surgical care for transgender youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. On March 18, 2025, in Moe v. Yost, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the ban as applied to pharmaceutical treatments violated Ohio’s constitution.
Justice Edelstein began her opinion for the court by noting that the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for gender dysphoria was in line with guidelines issued by different medical associations. She then explained that the 2011 “health freedom” amendment to the state constitution secured the “right to choose to receive health care that follows the widely accepted guidelines and treatment protocols of the professional medical community in the United States.” She also found that because the ban was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, it violated the “due course” provision of Ohio’s constitution (which is similar to the Due Process protections of the US Constitution) by infringing on parents’ fundamental right to “seek medical care for their children.”
Although the decision may be appealed, the court’s reasoning show that professional guidelines and expertise remain important in cases relating to access to medical treatments.
| 
