By The Epoch Times | Created at 2026-08-15 05:21:59 | Updated at 2026-08-15 07:10:13
2 hours ago
A federal appeals court on Aug. 14 revived a Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoena seeking information from a Washington state provider of so-called transgender healthcare to minors, which a lower court blocked as politically motivated.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that a federal district judge in Seattle erred in concluding that the DOJ subpoena was issued in bad faith in a lawsuit filed by telehealth provider QueerDoc.
QueerDoc offers so-called gender-affirming care for patients, including minors, diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is discomfort arising from a perceived mismatch between a patient’s sex at birth and purported gender identity. Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be prescribed for the provider’s patients.
The panel opinion noted that in January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14168, which said that the United States “recognize[s] two sexes, male and female,” and that “[t]hese sexes are not changeable.” He also signed Executive Order 14187, which said the federal government would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another.”
DOJ served an administrative subpoena on QueerDoc directing it to produce documents the department said it needed for an investigation into potential violations of federal healthcare laws. The subpoena, part of a series of similar demands the Trump administration has made to hospitals and clinics across the country, sought patient and personnel records, billing data, and other information.
The provider challenged the subpoena, arguing, among other things, that it violated patient privacy. U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead invalidated the document, holding it was not enforceable because DOJ issued it for the “improper purpose” of enforcing Trump’s policy objective of ending gender transition treatments.
In a written opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea, the panel majority held that the subpoena was properly issued under the subpoena authority provisions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The federal statute both protects the privacy of patient medical records and authorizes the DOJ to issue subpoenas in investigations of potential federal healthcare offenses.
The panel determined that the issuance of the subpoena was lawful because HIPAA allows investigations for potential violations of misbranding prohibitions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Because DOJ adhered to HIPAA’s procedural requirements, the subpoena request, which was related to an investigation authorized by HIPAA, was lawful.
The panel also held that QueerDoc failed to provide “specific evidence of improper intent,” and in the process failed to meet the heavy burden needed to quash the subpoena.
The panel said the Trump administration’s mere opposition to gender-affirming care doesn’t prove the HIPAA subpoena was issued in bad faith. The so-called presumption of regularity requires that courts give official actions the benefit of the doubt.
“The President may direct DOJ to exercise its statutory authority in a manner that aligns with his broader policy goals,” U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea said in the panel’s written opinion.
“There is nothing improper about a President having policy preferences and directing the Executive Branch to enforce federal law in a manner consistent with those preferences.
“The goal of ending ‘gender-affirming care’ is not in and of itself an ‘improper’ policy objective. It is not so irrational or arbitrary” that it is beyond the president’s powers, Bea said.
The panel did not order QueerDoc to hand over the requested documents. Instead, it sent the case back to the district court to determine whether the provider’s separate claims—that the demand for information was overbroad and would impose an undue burden on the small clinic—were valid.
U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez filed a dissenting opinion, saying the government tried to strong-arm QueerDoc.
“There is a mountain of evidence that corroborates that DOJ used the threat of criminal investigation to pressure healthcare providers to stop offering gender-affirming care,” he said.
Paez said the district court was justified in finding that the issuance of the subpoena was “a pretext for its real goal of eliminating gender-affirming care, not in good faith investigation of potential violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to QueerDoc and the DOJ. No replies were received by publication time.
