On Wednesday, a federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from implementing an anti-transgender executive order affecting recipients of federal teen pregnancy prevention grant funding.

In January, the 45th and 47th president issued Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Through this order, Trump instructed agencies to “terminate” federal funding and “ensure grant funds do not endorse gender ideology.”

This executive order was quickly followed by four others. In early July, HHS released a policy notice to translate these controversial directives into administrative rules, which led to the lawsuit filed in late July.

In a 51-page complaint, branches of Planned Parenthood in New York, California, and Iowa alleged the government engaged in “unlawful and dangerous” actions, asserting it “sends a chilling message: that evidence, expertise, and equity can be dismissed in favor of ideology.”

In a 65-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, appointed by Barack Obama, criticized the Department of Health and Human Services for policies “based solely on ideological and political preferences created out of thin air” deriving “inspiration” from President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

“Such ideological considerations are irrelevant to the statutory program established by Congress, which targets effective, evidence-based programming,” the opinion, echoing the complaint, reads.

The lawsuit was largely based on various alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing the behavior of federal agencies. The plaintiffs also alleged constitutional violations, including First Amendment and due process claims.

In ruling on dueling motions for summary judgment, the judge explained how the plaintiffs secured a vacatur of the HHS policy.

“The vagueness of the new requirements imposed by the July Policy Notice renders this Notice arbitrary and capricious and justifies vacatur without considering the other APA defects raised by plaintiffs,” the opinion goes on. “The Notice is nevertheless also arbitrary and capricious because HHS did not provide any reasoning or evidence in support of its approach, seemingly relied on irrelevant ideological factors, and did not justify its change in position.”

In other words, the court says the policy is deficient in several ways under the APA. And though only one such deficiency would cause her to rule in the plaintiffs’ favor, Howell feels compelled to opine on the nature of the policy and how the government defended it.

From the opinion, at length:

The July Policy Notice itself acknowledges that “ideological” content is beyond the [Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP)] statute’s scope, but then ironically injects ideological considerations into TPP programming by cutting material—that was approved as part of an evidence-backed, proven-effective program—for political, rather than scientific or effectiveness, reasons. Neither the July Policy Notice nor the administrative record suggests any explanation as to why the “normaliz[ation]” of sexual activity or discussion of “boys . . . identif[ying] as girls” (nor any other content) must be removed from approved replicable, evidence-based programs in order to ensure program effectiveness, leaving the obvious conclusion that HHS’s motivation was ideological. If ideology is not contemplated as relevant under the TPP statutory provision, ideological preferences should not be part of the agency’s dictates at all.

Notably, the court mentions how the plaintiffs’ victory here was nothing like a foregone conclusion – pointing out how they initially failed to receive a requested temporary restraining order (TRO) in the days immediately after they filed their lawsuit.

At the time, the various Planned Parenthood plaintiffs were unable to show how the new policy had caused them “irreparable harm,” but they did foresee problems down the road.

Now, the judge says, those concerns have come to pass.

“Since the denial of the TRO, plaintiffs have been forced to make the difficult choice they had anticipated, between drawing down funds in protest, which would risk enforcement proceedings, complying with the July Policy Notice despite its seemingly problematic dictates, and refusing federal money altogether,” the opinion continues. “Plaintiffs have all refrained from drawing down funds for their year three expenses. [Two plaintiff groups] have relied on reserves to keep their programming going for a short time, while [the lead plaintiff group] has had to halt its programming in the absence of the grant money.”

And, while the opinion only makes a passing reference to the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, their other constitutional claim is repeatedly mentioned by Howell as the basis for Planned Parenthood’s win.

“The July Policy Notice imposes binding legal obligations on plaintiffs, setting out new requirements in an incomprehensibly vague fashion, inviting arbitrary enforcement in violation of the APA,” the opinion summarizes. “As a result, the July Policy Notice must be vacated and its enforcement enjoined, and defendants’ motion to dismiss denied.”