A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a Department of Justice subpoena seeking records from a provider of gender-affirming care for minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court was wrong to block the request, overturning a previous decision that the subpoena was issued for political reasons.
The legal dispute involves QueerDoc, a telehealth clinic that treats patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria, including minors. Following an executive order signed in January, the Trump administration directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations into gender-affirming care for youth and ended federal funding for such treatments.
The subpoena seeks a wide range of information from QueerDoc, including personnel records, billing data, and patient medical records. While the appeals court panel was divided 2-1, the majority determined that the President may direct the Justice Department to exercise its authority to align with broader policy goals. The Department of Justice stated it is investigating whether hospitals providing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to children have complied with federal law.
For patients and families, this development means that personal health information previously considered private could be accessed by federal investigators. Healthcare workers at targeted facilities will also see their personnel records subject to government scrutiny. The Justice Department maintains these are standard investigations into potential federal offenses, while the clinic's founder, Crystal Beal, stated that patients should be able to seek care without fear that personal information will be used in a political investigation.
This decision marks the first time a U.S. appeals court has upheld such a subpoena after multiple lower court judges in states like New York and California had previously blocked them. The ruling sets a precedent that the executive branch may use its investigative authority to pursue specific policy objectives regarding transgender healthcare. The case now returns to a U.S. District Judge in Seattle, who will determine if the subpoena is too broad or places an undue burden on the small clinic before any documents must be produced.