Background graphic
Health Law Bulletins

Presidential order establishing policy to eliminate gender-affirming care does not invalidate DOJ’s investigative subpoena issued under HIPAA

August 28, 2026

QueerDoc v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 2359440 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026)

QueerDoc is a telehealth provider that prescribes off-label puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to patients, including minors, whom it diagnoses with gender dysphoria. After President Trump signed executive orders declaring that the United States recognizes only two sexes, and that the federal government would not support the transition of children from one sex to another, DOJ issued a HIPAA administrative subpoena to QueerDoc seeking numerous documents. QueerDoc moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that DOJ had issued the subpoena for an improper purpose, and that it was overbroad and unduly burdensome. The district court quashed the subpoena, ruling that DOJ had issued it for the “improper purpose” of “eliminating gender-affirming care.” DOJ appealed.

In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The majority held the district court erred because DOJ properly issued the subpoena under HIPAA’s statutory authority to investigate potential violations of the FDCA’s misbranding prohibitions and because the subpoena targeted information relevant to that investigation. The QueerDoc website, including its patient instructions and claims about drug reversibility, could constitute mislabeling and it was premature to assess QueerDoc’s possible defenses to charges that had not yet been made. The majority further held that QueerDoc failed to meet its “heavy burden” of producing “specific facts and evidence” of bad faith or illicit motives, noting that the Administration’s policy opposing gender-affirming care was not unlawful.  Because the district court had not addressed QueerDoc’s overbreadth and undue burden arguments, the Ninth Circuit remanded for consideration of those issues.

The dissenting judge argued that the district court’s finding of bad faith was not clearly erroneous, noting that DOJ had failed to timely submit evidence establishing the subpoena was relevant to its FDCA investigation and its effort to put QueerDoc out of business was improper.

Related Attorneys

Presidential order establishing policy to eliminate gender-affirming care does not invalidate DOJ’s investigative subpoena issued under HIPAA

H. Thomas Watson

Partner Los Angeles
Presidential order establishing policy to eliminate gender-affirming care does not invalidate DOJ’s investigative subpoena issued under HIPAA

Peder K. Batalden

Partner Los Angeles
Presidential order establishing policy to eliminate gender-affirming care does not invalidate DOJ’s investigative subpoena issued under HIPAA

Lacey L. Estudillo

Counsel San Francisco

Put Our Proven Appellate Expertise to Work for You.

For over 60 years, we've preserved judgments, reversed errors, and reduced awards in some of California’s most high-profile appellate cases.

Explore our practices Explore Careers
Horvitz