US Appeals Court Revives Justice Department Subpoena Targeting Gender-Affirming Care Provider

From Dispatch Room

A United States federal appeals court has reinstated a Justice Department subpoena seeking personnel, billing and patient records from QueerDoc, a telehealth provider that offers gender-affirming healthcare, including treatment for minors.

The divided ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gives the Trump administration a significant legal victory in its broader effort to investigate healthcare providers offering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and other gender-related medical treatment to minors.

The case arose after QueerDoc challenged a Justice Department subpoena that sought a range of records, including information relating to employees, billing practices and patients. A federal judge in Seattle had previously blocked the demand after concluding that the subpoena had been issued in bad faith and was politically motivated.

On Friday, August 14, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit disagreed with that finding and sent the case back to the lower court. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, joined by Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, concluded that the executive branch may direct the Justice Department to use its statutory investigative authority in ways consistent with the president’s broader policy priorities.

Circuit Judge Richard Paez dissented, arguing that there was substantial evidence that the Justice Department had used the threat of criminal investigation to pressure healthcare providers into ending gender-affirming care.

Importantly, the appeals court did not order QueerDoc to immediately turn over the requested records. Instead, the case was returned to U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle to consider QueerDoc’s remaining arguments that the subpoena is excessively broad and would impose an undue burden on the small provider.

QueerDoc founder and chief executive Crystal Beal criticised the ruling, arguing that patients should be able to obtain medical treatment without fearing that highly personal health information could become part of a politically driven investigation.

The Justice Department, however, welcomed the decision. Brett Shumate, head of the department’s Civil Division, said the government has authority to investigate whether healthcare providers administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children have complied with federal law.

The legal dispute is part of a much broader confrontation over transgender healthcare under the Trump administration.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to take steps aimed at restricting federal support for gender-transition-related medical interventions involving people under 19. The order also directed the Justice Department to prioritise enforcement actions relating to such treatments.

The administration describes treatments including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and certain surgeries as harmful interventions involving minors. Supporters of gender-affirming care and several medical providers dispute that characterisation and argue that treatment decisions should remain between patients, families and qualified healthcare professionals.

The QueerDoc ruling is particularly significant because Reuters reported it as the first decision by a U.S. federal appeals court upholding one of the Trump Justice Department’s subpoenas targeting providers of gender-affirming care to minors. Several lower courts have previously blocked similar demands.

The ruling does not resolve the wider legal battle. QueerDoc may still prevail on its arguments that the subpoena is overbroad or excessively burdensome, while separate challenges involving similar Justice Department demands remain before other courts.

The dispute therefore raises two competing legal concerns: the federal government’s authority to investigate possible violations of federal healthcare laws, and the privacy and procedural protections available to medical providers and their patients when sensitive health records are sought.

— Newspot Nigeria