Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, 793 F.Supp.3d 112

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, requiring federal agencies to align materials with the administration’s view on biological sex and to remove content deemed as promoting “gender ideology.”
Nine days later, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a Memo requiring agencies to comply within 48 hours, prompting rapid removal or modification of health care webpages by several subdivisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including CDC, FDA, and others.
Plaintiffs (Doctors for America and others) argued these removals harmed health professionals' ability to provide care and research, and that the agencies violated federal laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the Evidence-Based Policy Act (EBPA).
The district court granted immediate temporary relief (TRO), ordering the restoration of identified webpages, but stopped short of the broadest relief sought by plaintiffs.
After further litigation and agency action, the dispute centered on whether the removals and agency guidance were lawful agency actions under the APA and other statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
OPM's Statutory Authority to Issue Memo	OPM exceeded statutory power; its enabling statute doesn't permit directing other agencies to remove web content.	OPM acted within authority to secure accuracy and uniformity in federal personnel functions.	OPM exceeded its statutory authority; Memo vacated.
Final Agency Action under APA	The OPM Memo and HHS Guidance were final agency actions subject to judicial review.	Actions were not “final agency actions” under APA, or were merely guidance/implementation.	OPM Memo and HHS Guidance were final agency actions under the APA.
Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action	Policies were adopted without reasoned explanation or consideration of reliance interests or statutory obligations (APA violation).	The removals were justified by the Executive Order and necessary to comply; no further justification required.	Actions were arbitrary and capricious; agencies failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking.
Adequacy of Standing (plaintiffs’ injuries and claims)	Plaintiffs (health professionals/orgs) suffered concrete, particularized harm—direct interference with their work and diversion of resources.	Plaintiffs lack standing; no real injury or redressable harm traceable to agency actions.	Plaintiffs had standing for key claims; not for challenge to disclaimer on restored webpages.

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete injury, causation, and redressability)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious review standard under APA)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (defining "final agency action" for purposes of APA review)
FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367 (organizational standing, injury to professionals’ work)
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (court review of agency action under the APA)
Abbott Lab’ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (finality and reviewability of agency guidance)
Marin Audubon Soc’y v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (agencies are creatures of statute, bound by congressional authorization)
Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.- Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (court may not supply agency’s reasoning post hoc)