Appeals Court Backs Trump in Subpoena Fight Over Trans Care
A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care is not improper and cannot be the basis for quashing a subpoena issued by the Justice Department against a provider of medical treatment for transgender youth. The 2-1 decision, reported by AP News, marks the first time a federal appeals court has upheld a Trump administration subpoena targeting providers of gender-affirming care.
The Ruling
The 9th Circuit panel reversed a lower court ruling that had quashed the subpoena against QueerDoc, a Washington state-based telemedicine provider, sending the case back to U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle to consider the company’s remaining arguments that the subpoena is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush nominee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee. Judge Richard Paez, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented.
“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” Bea wrote. He added that the president “may have moral and political objections to gender-affirming care, wish to end it, and take steps to achieve that goal consistent with law.”
The Subpoena Campaign
The Justice Department announced last year that it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics providing gender-affirming care as part of an effort to investigate healthcare fraud. The subpoena against QueerDoc seeks personnel files, billing documents, communications with drug manufacturers, and records of patients who were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Federal judges have quashed many of the subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care.
Trump has signed executive orders defining sex as only male or female and seeking to end federal funding of gender-affirming care for patients under 19. The latter order directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law.
Dissent and Criticism
In his dissent, Paez said 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 warned that “the law does not permit the DOJ to initiate sham investigations — even if the President says to do so.”
Paez also highlighted the potential harm to patients, writing that “disclosure of patients’ names and personally identifying information intimidates current patients and deters prospective patients from seeking care.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adrien Leavitt, who represents QueerDoc, said the ACLU would continue fighting the subpoena in district court. “We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said in a statement.
QueerDoc founder and CEO Crystal Beal said, “Every patient deserves to know they can seek medical care without fear that their most personal health information will become a tool of political investigation.”
Broader Implications
The ruling comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors and similar laws in 26 other states. That ruling did not directly affect states like California that allow the care, which have become a source of medication and treatment for youths from other states.
Friday’s ruling, if it stands, would apply to California and other states in the 9th Circuit and could extend nationwide if the case reaches the Supreme Court, as the San Francisco Chronicle noted. The court did not order QueerDoc to produce the documents, and the district court may consider protective orders to protect patient privacy.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, head of the DOJ’s civil division, said the ruling confirms the agency “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.”
Christopher Stoll of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights said that “although the administration’s hostility to transgender medical care is disturbing, today’s decision doesn’t mean that the courts can’t act to protect patients and providers.”
What’s Next
The case now returns to the district court, where QueerDoc will argue the subpoena is overbroad and unduly burdensome. The ruling could also influence the Justice Department’s strategy in other pending appeals of quashed subpoenas, and legal experts say the dispute could ultimately reach the Supreme Court if a circuit split develops.
At least eight major hospitals and hospital systems announced in July 2025 that they were stopping or restricting gender-affirming care, even in states where it is not banned, reflecting the chilling effect of the investigation on the availability of care.