Judge wrongly blocked DOJ investigation into ‘gender-affirming’ telehealth clinic, Ninth Circuit finds

QueerDoc has argued that the real purpose of the Trump administration's subpoena was to pressure health care providers to stop offering puberty blockers and hormone therapy to minors.(CN) — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that a district court judge wrongly blocked a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Justice for records kept by QueerDoc, a telehealth clinic that provides “gender affirming care.”The lower court found the subpoena was issued for an “improper purpose,” to “eliminate all gender-affirming care” rather than investigate wrongdoing. But the three-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that purpose legitimate.“Although the subpoena here was validly based on an investigation of health care law violations, the goal of ending ‘gender-affirming care’ is not in and of itself an ‘improper’ policy objective,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, a 92-year-old George W. Bush appointee. “It is not so irrational or arbitrary as to be ultra vires. The Administration is entitled to adopt a position on either side of this ‘ongoing debate among medical experts.’”The 92-year-old Bea ventured to weigh in on that ongoing debate, writing, “The efficacy and long-term risks of these treatments are uncertain. The off-label use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria may adversely affect a minor patient’s bone density, brain development and fertility; the off-label use of cross-sex hormones may harm a patient’s sexual organs and increase his risk of cancer.”The ruling sends the case back to the district judge to consider QueerDoc’s remaining arguments that the subpoena is overbroad and unduly burdensome.Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate offered a brief comment on the social media platform X, writing that the ruling confirms the DOJ “can investigate whether hospitals that provide cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to children have complied with federal law because the trans medical industry is not above the law.”Adrien Leavitt, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Washington, said in a written statement: “Today’s decision sends this case back to the district court, and we’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care.”Little more than a week after his second inauguration, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, announcing: “It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”Months later, then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directed prosecutors to investigate medical providers and drug companies for marketing and prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors. In July 2025, the Justice Department sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in “gender affirming” care, medical interventions intended to align a patient’s physical characteristics with their gender identity.One subpoena went to QueerDoc, an online clinic that treats patients, including minors, for gender dysphoria. Some patients are prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones after completing online forms and meeting virtually with a medical professional. The subpoena sought numerous documents, including records of any “patient who was prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.”Last year, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead quashed the subpoena, agreeing with QueerDoc that the Justice Department had used its investigative authority to advance Trump’s goal of eliminating gender-affirming care.But the Ninth Circuit disagreed.“The district court should not have inferred DOJ’s bad faith from political advocacy statements made by government officials,” Bea wrote in the ruling. “The district court’s finding of improper purpose was erroneous. Equally misguided, however, was the district court’s intrusion upon the President’s core constitutional power to set law enforcement priorities and to order his subordinate officers to carry out these enforcement priorities.”He did, however, suggest that QueerDoc could still narrow the scope of the subpoena on patient privacy grounds.“The district court may entertain any objections specific to DOJ’s requests for patient medical records if QueerDoc argues that compliance with these requests would raise concerns about patient privacy, Bea wrote. “The district court and the parties should also consider whether protective orders or other devices should be used to ameliorate any concerns about privacy.”Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, agreed with the ruling, while Circuit Judge Richard Paez, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented.“There is,” wrote Paez, “a mountain of evidence that corroborates that DOJ used the threat of criminal investigation to pressure health care providers to stop offering gender-affirming care.”He added: “The law does not permit the DOJ to initiate sham investigations — even if the President says to do so.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads