A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 on August 14 to revive a Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoena against QueerDoc, a Washington-based telehealth provider offering gender-affirming care, including to minors. The subpoena had been blocked by a federal district judge in Seattle, who found it was issued in bad faith as part of a politically motivated effort.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, stating that President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive orders—which directed federal agencies to recognize only two sexes and prohibited funding for gender transition treatments for minors—did not invalidate the DOJ’s authority to issue the subpoena. The panel returned the case to the district court to evaluate QueerDoc’s remaining arguments that the subpoena is overly broad and imposes an undue burden.
QueerDoc’s Services and Legal Challenge
QueerDoc provides gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, to patients diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The DOJ’s subpoena demands patient and personnel records, billing data, and other documents as part of an investigation into potential violations of federal healthcare laws. The provider argued the subpoena violated patient privacy and was issued for an improper purpose: enforcing the Trump administration’s policy to end gender transition treatments for minors.
Court Ruling and Next Steps
In the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea wrote that the president may direct the DOJ to exercise its statutory authority in alignment with policy goals. The court did not rule on the merits of QueerDoc’s remaining challenges but remanded the case for further review. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, joined Bea in the majority, while Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland dissented.
The DOJ has issued similar subpoenas to hospitals and clinics across the country as part of its broader investigation into gender-affirming care for minors. QueerDoc’s legal team has not indicated whether it will appeal the ruling or pursue additional legal avenues.