Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION—D.D.C.: Endocrine Society, WPATH obtain preliminary injunction of FTC investigative demands, (May 8, 2026)

By Christopher M. Longo, J.D.

The nonprofit organizations established that the FTC’s Civil Investigative Demands were likely issued “in retaliation for [the organizations’] First Amendment activity.”

The federal district court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions enjoining Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) issued by the FTC against the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). The Endocrine Society, a nonprofit organization that “serves as a hub for scientists and medical professionals who study and treat various endocrine disorders” and affirms that “some individuals feel incongruence between their gender identity and their designated gender,” and WPATH, a nonprofit that “dedicated to promoting science-based medical care, education, research, and public policy in transgender health,” sued the FTC, alleging the agency retaliated against them by issuing CIDs targeting their advocacy and clinical guidance on gender-affirming care, in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that the organizations showed that the CIDs were likely issued in retaliation for the groups’ First Amendment Activity, and enjoined the CIDs’ implementation and enforcement (Endocrine Society v. FTC, No. 1:26-cv-00512-JEB (D.D.C. May 7, 2026)); (World Professional Association For Transgender Health v. FTC, No. 1:26-cv-00532-JEB (D.D.C. May 7, 2026)).

Background. The FTC served CIDs on both organizations as part of an investigation to determine whether they had “made, or assisted others in making, false or unsubstantiated representations or engaged in unfair practices in connection with the marketing and advertising of Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Treatment.” The court noted that President Trump and his administration “have expressed vehement disagreement with, criticism of, and vitriol toward” the view that “individuals can experience gender incongruence between their biological sex and their gender identity and that gender-affirming care can treat that incongruence.” The President and Administration, per the court, “disclaim the existence of gender identities that diverge from a person’s sex assigned at birth and the suitability of treatment of such divergence.”

The demands required broad production of records, including internal communications, education and advocacy materials, and materials underlying clinical guidelines and public statements. The organizations contended that the FTC’s demands had a chilling effect on their staffs’ and members’ speech, including volunteers’ and academic partners’ fears of repercussions for associating with them. The Society argued that some members and staff “withdrew from the Society’s work altogether.”

The Society and WPATH filed suit in federal district court, alleging that the FTC was retaliating against them “for [their] protected speech in support of gender-affirming care” in violation of the First Amendment, and sought preliminary injunctions to bar enforcement of the CIDs. The FTC opposed the motions, citing issues as to jurisdiction and lack of a valid cause of action.

Jurisdiction. The FTC argued the court lacked jurisdiction, contending that that “Congress, through the FTC Act, has ‘divest[ed] district courts of their ordinary federal-question jurisdiction’ over any pre-enforcement challenges to CIDs.” It maintained that challenges should be raised only in enforcement proceedings. The court rejected that argument, noting that the FTC raised the same jurisdictional argument that it raised in Media Matters For America v. FTC. There, the court held that “‘when a [plaintiff] challenges a “sweeping” demand on First Amendment grounds and demonstrates actual and ongoing harm to its constitutional rights,’ the case does not fall into the standard pre-enforcement channeling regime.” The court emphasized that the organizations alleged present injury from the issuance of the CIDs, not merely hypothetical future harm. The court noted that with these ongoing injuries from the CIDs themselves, “review upon enforcement” did not provide a “sufficient remedy,” and that with regard to the Society’s claim, it was “‘wholly collateral’ to the existence of the FTC’s investigatory power or authority to issue a CID.” The court held that the Society was “likely to succeed” in demonstrating the court’s jurisdiction over its claim, and that analysis applied equally in both the Society’s and WPATH’s cases.

Cause of action. The FTC argued that the Society and WPATH lacked a cause of action. The court was not swayed, noting that the organizations’ allegations of “chilling [their] expression in retaliation for prior protected speech” are “justiciable constitutional rights” and that “[t]he most obvious enforcement method is a court order requiring the Government to cease its unconstitutional actions.” None of the cases cited by the FTC “undermined” the court’s opinion that the organizations would “succeed on the cause-of-action requirement.”

First Amendment. To determine whether the FTC issued the CIDs in retaliation for protected speech, the court assessed likelihood of success using a three-part framework where the organizations had to show that they engaged in “conduct protected under the First Amendment,” that the FTC’s retaliatory action had a deterrent effect, and that there was “‘a causal link between’ the protected speech and the retaliatory action.”

The court noted that the FTC did not dispute that the Endocrine Society and WPATH engage in protected speech, noting that with regard to the Society, it “frequently engages in protected speech covered by the First Amendment,” and that its medical Guidelines were the focus of the at-issue CID.

The Endocrine Society showed that the CID caused “hesitancy of the Society’s staff or academic and professional members to continue communicating, for fear of further government retaliation or collateral consequences of being associated with an organization under investigation,” and that it “experienced a withdrawal of member participation in its work because of fear of government scrutiny triggered by the CID.”

WPATH presented similar evidence. It demonstrated “an undercurrent of fear among staff and members following the CID,” including “fear that specific members will become targets, and fear that academic professionals will not openly discuss their ideas given the possibility of turnover.” The court also noted that the CID demanded documents “that WPATH relied upon to assert that pediatric-gender-dysphoria treatment is safe and effective.” The court found that the organizations demonstrated a likelihood to prevail as to the second element.

The court determined that both organizations were likely to establish a causal link between their protected speech and the issuance of the CIDs. It relied on circumstantial evidence, including statements by government officials expressing skepticism or hostility toward gender-affirming care and toward organizations promoting such views. The scope of the CIDs reinforced the inference of retaliation. The demands sought “substantive content that itself would be protected by the First Amendment and the identity of the individuals who created the content.” The court emphasized the mismatch between the FTC’s stated rationale and the sweeping nature of the demands. It concluded that the Society “is likely to succeed in its First Amendment retaliation claim against the FTC” and that WPATH “is likely to demonstrate a causal link between its protected speech and the FTC’s issuance of the CID.”

The court enjoined enforcement of the CIDs.

The Cases are No. 1:26-cv-00512-JEB and No. 1:26-cv-00532-JEB.

Judge: Boasberg, J.

Attorneys: Caleb Hayes-Deats (Lowell & Associates, PLLC) for World Professional Association for Transgender Health. John Bailey for the FTC. Dev Ranjan (Cooley LLP) for Endocrine Society.

Companies: World Professional Association Transgender Health

Cases: Antitrust ConsumerProtection Advertising DistrictofColumbiaNews FederalTradeCommissionNews