An appeals court, split in its decision, has determined that President Donald Trump’s objective to halt gender-affirming care is legitimate and cannot serve as grounds to invalidate a Justice Department subpoena directed at a transgender youth medical care provider.
Friday’s 2-1 decision from a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a notable legal development in ongoing battles over federal healthcare investigations and executive oversight. The ruling reversed a ruling that quashed the subpoena directed at QueerDoc, a Washington state-based telemedicine provider, sending the case back to the district court to consider other arguments.
The litigation originates from a broader initiative initiated last year by the Department of Justice, which disclosed that it had issued upwards of 20 subpoenas to medical professionals and clinics offering gender-affirming care as part of a healthcare fraud inquiry. While various federal judges have previously quashed many of these subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care, the 9th Circuit majority charted a different course.
Appeals Court Weighs Presidential Priorities and Scientific Debate
Writing for the majority, Judge Carlos Bea—a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush—asserted that the executive branch holds authority to align the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities with broader policy goals. Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee, joined in the opinion.
“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” Judge Carlos Bea wrote, according to the Associated Press. The appellate panel characterized the efficacy and long-term risks of the treatments as “uncertain,” describing the wider discourse as an unsettled scientific debate.
The court’s majority also noted that the administration could justify its opposition to the treatment on ethical or philosophical grounds. Among other details, the contested subpoena demands access to QueerDoc’s personnel files, billing records, correspondence with pharmaceutical companies, and the files of patients prescribed hormone therapy or puberty blockers.
Legal Defense and Wider Administrative Measures
Attorneys representing the telemedicine provider argued that the government’s demand was overbroad and burdensome. Adrien Leavitt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union representing QueerDoc, stated that the legal team intends to keep challenging the subpoena at the district court level.
“We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said, as reported by the Associated Press, noting that the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit was the first appeals court to weigh in on the subpoenas.
Federal prosecutors have indicated they possess grounds to suspect that the firm might be providing deceptive information regarding hormones and puberty blockers. This legal dispute unfolds concurrently with executive directives issued by President Trump, which entail defining gender strictly as male or female—and as immutable—alongside another directive aimed at cutting off federal funding for treatments provided to individuals under the age of 19. That second order also directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law by “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”
Next Steps in District Court
With the 9th Circuit panel reversing the initial order that set aside the subpoena, the litigation returns to the district court to consider other arguments.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
We welcome your thoughts on this ruling in the comments below, and feel free to share this coverage with others following these developments.
