Ninth Circuit Revives DOJ Subpoena in QueerDoc Case

A divided Ninth Circuit panel on Friday revived the Justice Department’s administrative subpoena to QueerDoc, a telehealth provider that serves patients with gender dysphoria, including minors. The court reversed a Western District of Washington order that had quashed the subpoena in full, but it did not require QueerDoc to produce every requested record.

The published decision, filed Aug. 14, 2026, in QueerDoc, PLLC v. DOJ, was a 2-1 ruling by Judges Carlos Bea and Daniel Bress. Judge Richard Paez dissented.

The case now returns to the district court, which must address QueerDoc’s remaining objections that the subpoena is overbroad, unduly burdensome and raises concerns about patient medical records. The immediate result is that the subpoena has been revived for further proceedings; its final scope and enforceability remain unsettled.

What the majority held

The majority held that DOJ could use HIPAA’s administrative-subpoena authority in an investigation of potential federal health-care offenses. It accepted the possibility that the investigation could include alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including theories involving misbranding or misleading claims about drugs used in gender-related care.

The panel also concluded that DOJ followed HIPAA’s procedural requirements and that the requested information was relevant to an authorized investigation. The decision concerns investigative authority and subpoena enforcement. It is not a finding that QueerDoc violated federal law.

QueerDoc argued that the subpoena was driven by the administration’s public opposition to gender-affirming care rather than a legitimate law-enforcement purpose. The majority said that policy opposition, standing alone, did not establish bad faith or overcome the presumption that executive officials act regularly. The court said a president may direct DOJ to use lawful enforcement authority in ways that align with broader policy priorities.

Why the purpose dispute mattered

The district court had quashed the subpoena after finding that DOJ issued it for an improper purpose tied to the administration’s goal of ending gender-affirming care. The Ninth Circuit rejected that basis for quashing the subpoena in full.

The majority emphasized that the question was whether DOJ had statutory authority and whether QueerDoc had met the demanding standard for proving an improper purpose. It did not rule that the administration’s broader policy goals override state medical laws or settle the scientific and ethical disputes surrounding gender-affirming care.

What records DOJ seeks

The subpoena covers personnel files for executives and certain prescribing, medical-evaluation and billing staff; billing, coding, insurance and reimbursement records involving gender-related care for minors; communications with drug manufacturers, salespeople and pharmacies; sponsorship and contract records; and patient records involving puberty blockers or hormone therapy.

It also seeks records concerning informed consent, intake, parental authorization, disclosures about off-label use, communications about drug safety and records of adverse effects or other unfavorable consequences involving minors.

In July 2025, DOJ announced that it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in providing transgender medical procedures to children. The department described its broader investigations as involving possible health-care fraud, false statements and other potential offenses. Those are government investigative theories and allegations, not findings that QueerDoc or another provider committed wrongdoing.

The dissent

Paez argued that the district court’s bad-faith finding was not clearly erroneous. He said DOJ had submitted little evidence opposing the motion to quash while the record supported the conclusion that the subpoena was being used as a pretext to pressure providers to stop offering gender-affirming care.

He also argued that the government had not shown that the requested information was relevant and material to its stated investigative purpose. The dissent warned that the majority’s approach could make courts too deferential to investigations that serve a president’s policy priorities.

What happens next

The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether the subpoena is too broad or imposes an undue burden. It instructed the parties to try to narrow or resolve disagreements and said QueerDoc must support any burden claims with specific evidence, such as the number of files, estimated work hours and compliance costs.

The district court may also consider objections involving patient medical records and whether protective orders or other safeguards can address privacy concerns. That means the ruling does not automatically require disclosure of all patient information covered by the subpoena.

For telehealth providers, the case gives DOJ more room to pursue this investigation despite the administration’s openly stated opposition to gender-affirming care. For patients and families, it highlights the continuing uncertainty over how federal investigative demands may affect confidential medical information.

The broader legal point is narrower than the competing policy arguments: an appeals court has allowed this subpoena dispute to proceed, but it has not found that QueerDoc violated federal law, declared gender-affirming care illegal or created a nationwide rule. Further district-court proceedings will determine what records, if any, QueerDoc must produce and whether additional appeals follow.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.