The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision that quashed a subpoena issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to QueerDoc, a telehealth provider specializing in gender-affirming care. The ruling, filed on August 14, 2026, allows the DOJ to continue its investigation into potential violations of federal health care laws related to QueerDoc's practices.
This case affects QueerDoc, which provides medical services to individuals, including minors, diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The ruling is significant because it addresses the intersection of federal health care law, administrative authority, and the ongoing national debate over gender-affirming care.
Background
QueerDoc, PLLC, is a telehealth provider that offers gender-affirming care to patients, including minors. The company allows patients to consult with licensed medical professionals through video appointments. After these consultations, patients may be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and prescribed treatments such as puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.
The dispute began when the DOJ issued an administrative subpoena to QueerDoc as part of an investigation into potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The subpoena sought a range of documents, including patient records and communications with drug manufacturers. QueerDoc responded by filing a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that it was issued for an improper purpose, specifically to further the Trump Administration's policy of eliminating gender-affirming care.
The district court agreed with QueerDoc, quashing the subpoena on the grounds that it was issued for an improper purpose. The DOJ appealed the decision, leading to the Ninth Circuit's review of the case.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit panel, which included Judges Richard A. Paez, Carlos T. Bea, and Daniel A. Bress, reversed the district court's order. The court ruled that the DOJ had the statutory authority to issue the subpoena under HIPAA and that QueerDoc did not meet the heavy burden of proving that the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose. Judge Bea stated, "The Executive Branch’s public opposition to ‘gender-affirming care’ is insufficient to show that an agency within the Executive Branch issued an otherwise permissible HIPAA subpoena in bad faith."
The panel emphasized that the DOJ's actions were consistent with its statutory authority and that the subpoena requests were relevant to an authorized investigation under HIPAA. The court also noted that the district court had not addressed QueerDoc's alternative arguments regarding the subpoena's overbreadth and undue burden, remanding the case for further proceedings on those issues.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the future of gender-affirming care and federal investigations into health care practices. By allowing the DOJ to proceed with its investigation, the Ninth Circuit's decision may embolden federal authorities to scrutinize telehealth providers and other entities involved in gender-affirming treatments.
The ruling also highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding gender-affirming care, particularly in light of recent executive orders and policies from the Trump Administration aimed at limiting such medical practices. The decision may set a precedent for how courts interpret the balance between federal health care regulations and the rights of medical providers to operate without undue interference.