"A federal judge has voided a Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoena requiring Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C. to hand over private information on young patients receiving gender-affirming care (GAC). The ruling is just the latest roadblock in the DOJ's quest to end GAC for trans youth; however, the hospital stopped offering GAC last July in response to the current presidential administration's threats to defund institutions that offer such care."
"The case involved eight families that received transition-related healthcare through the hospital's Gender Development Program between 2020 and 2025. The families said that the DOJ's subpoena - which demanded their addresses, children's social security number, medical diagnoses, prescriptions, and all documents affirming parental authorization, among other information - violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and their Fifth Amendment right to privacy in their medical records."
"but, because the subpoena sought "private medical records containing highly sensitive treatment" about children, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin wrote in her ruling that the families had legal standing, both because the subpoena put an "undue burden" upon the families and because their children were relying on their parental guardians "to protect [their] interests because [they lack legal] capacity to act in self-protection.""
A federal judge voided a DOJ subpoena that sought private records of young patients who received gender-affirming care at Children's National Hospital. The hospital had already stopped offering gender-affirming care last July amid threats of federal defunding. Eight families who obtained transition-related care through the hospital's Gender Development Program between 2020 and 2025 challenged the subpoena. The subpoena demanded addresses, social security numbers, diagnoses, prescriptions, and parental authorization documents. The families argued the subpoena violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections. The court held the families had standing due to undue burden and the children's reliance on parental protection.
Read at LGBTQ Nation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]