DDC won't protect World Professional Association for Transgender Health against FTC/WD Tex

World Professional Association for Transgender Health v. Federal Trade Comm’n, No. 26-532 (JEB), 2026 WL 1999008 (D.D.C. Jul. 10, 2026)

Some broader commentary on the regime’s mostly successful attempt to attack transgender care in Texas. A main promise of the FTC’s chair, when seeking the job, was that he would abuse the FTC’s power to go after gender-affirming care, and he’s delivering. Here, Judge Boasberg seems right in a time of ordinary law, but the result is to defer to Reed O’Connor’s tender mercies.

Previously, Judge Boasberg protected WPATH against the FTC’s CID seeking a broad range of internal records. He held that WPATH had shown that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the FTC issued the CID in retaliation for WPATH’s constitutionally protected speech and that it faced irreparable harm without preliminary relief.

The FTC and several states then brought a separate enforcement action against WPATH in the Northern District of Texas, alleging unfair or deceptive trade practices and false advertising. Judge Boasberg found that the cases were not so related as to justify an anti-suit injunction and require the Section 5 claim to proceed in DC.

“However the parties characterize the ongoing action in the Northern District of Texas, it is not an attempt to enforce the CID, which the FTC has withdrawn.” The FTC’s Texas suit attacks certain of WPATH’s statements that bear a “striking” resemblance to the statements that the CID targeted, which could open it up to discovery in Texas of the very same information. “But the Court’s injunction did not protect WPATH from complying with all information-seeking processes — only the CID that the Court held was likely retaliatory.”

Given that, an anti-suit injunction where no jurisdictional issues are implicated would require a “truly compelling showing,” and the background rule is that “a plaintiff who files a pre-enforcement challenge to stop the FTC from obtaining information cannot then force the Commission to bring later enforcement actions as compulsory counterclaims in plaintiff’s chosen forum.” The court wasn’t “prepared to conclude that an action that ‘involve[s] assertion of rights under a Congressionally mandated enforcement scheme’ is akin to a private dispute between parties that should reasonably be consolidated in one forum and time. And before one court acts to terminate another’s jurisdiction, it must be on sure footing indeed.”

Being subject to suit in Texas wasn’t itself a violation of WPATH’s First Amendment rights, nor was the cost of litigating in two fora. For what it will be worth (Judge O’Connor doesn’t seem minded to give other judges the same courtesy), “WPATH is free to cite this Court’s prior Opinion in any attempt to stave off discovery in the Texas action.”

Once again, the presumption of regularity seems to be operating here to empower the worst among us.

Note that the FTC here doesn't care that the 5th Circuit gutted its ability to get monetary relief, since it is attempting here to suppress speech.