This appeal arises out of the appellees’ suit to enjoin appellants from investigating appellees for child abuse after appellants announced that providing gender-affirming medical care to minors constitutes child abuse.[1] The individual appellees are MirabelVoe, individually and as parent and next friend of Antonio Voe, a minor; Wanda Roe, individually and as parent and next friend of Tommy Roe, a minor; and Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle, individually and as parents and next friends of M.B., a minor (collectively, “Individual Appellees”).[2] We refer to Mirabel Voe, Wanda Roe, Adam Briggle, and Amber Briggle collectively as the “Parents”; and to Antonio Voe, Tommy Roe, and M.B. collectively as the “Minors.” Appellee PFLAG, Inc. was founded in 1973 by a mother and her gay son and is the first and largest organization dedicated to supporting, educating, and advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people, their parents and families, and allies. PFLAG is a network of over 250 local chapters throughout the United States; there are 17 chapters in Texas. Individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ and their parents, families, and allies join PFLAG directly or through one of its local chapters. Out of the approximately 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, over 600 members are in Texas. PFLAG asserts its claims in the lawsuit on behalf of its members. We refer to the Individual Appellees and PFLAG collectively as the “Families.” Appellants, Stephanie Muth, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, andthe Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (individually, “Commissioner” and “DFPS”; collectively, “Department”), challenge the trial court’s grant of two temporary injunctions prohibiting them from implementing or enforcing “a new rule” that “expand[ed] the definition of ‘child abuse’” and mandated an investigation of caregivers who are providing gender-affirming medical care (which the trial court defined as the “DFPS Rule”).[3] For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the trial court has jurisdiction and properly exercised its discretion in issuing the temporary injunctions. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s grant of those injunctions. BACKGROUND The Department Issues a Statement The underlying dispute arises from actions taken by the Department after the Attorney General issued an opinion on February 18, 2022, concluding that dispensing certain drugs to children with gender dysphoria could constitute “child abuse,” as defined by the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. KP-0401 (2022), 2022 WL 579379. On February 22, 2022, the Governor wrote a letter to the Commissioner (“Governor’s Directive”), enclosing the Attorney General’s opinion, which he described as confirming that the “administration of puberty-blocking drugs or supraphysiologic[al] doses of testosterone and estrogen” constitutes child abuse under existing Texas law, citing the definition of “abuse” found in Texas Family Code Section 261.001(1)(A)-(D). The Governor directed the Department “to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures in the State of Texas.” The Governor emphasized that “Texas law imposes reporting requirements upon all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children who may be subject to such abuse, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, and provides criminal penalties for failure to report such child abuse” and that members of the general public have similar reporting requirements and are subject to similar criminal penalties. The Governor further instructed the Department that it “must follow the law as explained in OAG Opinion No. KP-0401″ by investigating parents whose children are “subjected to these abusive gender-transitioning procedures.”[4] That same day, the Department issued the following statement to the media:
