The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to withdraw significant portions of a subpoena that sought sensitive medical records from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles related to transgender minors who received gender-affirming care. The move represents a
major legal and political development in the Trump administration’s broader effort to scrutinize and restrict such medical treatments for minors.
The subpoena, issued as part of a federal investigation into gender-affirming care, had requested extensive patient data, including diagnoses, prescriptions, and treatment records for thousands of children and adolescents. Civil rights advocates, families, and healthcare providers argued that the demand violated long-standing medical privacy protections and improperly placed patients’ personal health information at risk.
Following a legal challenge brought by families of patients, the DOJ agreed to withdraw its demand for records that could identify individual minors. The settlement limits the government’s access to sensitive data and reinforces protections for patient confidentiality.
Subpoena Challenged Over Patient Privacy
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, one of the largest pediatric hospitals in the country, became a focal point of the dispute after receiving a subpoena seeking records related to approximately 3,000 minors who had received care through its gender-affirming health program.
The original subpoena sought detailed information, including:
- Medical diagnoses
- Prescriptions for puberty blockers and hormone therapies
- Records related to off-label use of medications
- Treatment notes and related clinical documentation
Parents of six children who received care at the hospital filed a class-action lawsuit in November, arguing that the DOJ’s demands violated federal and state medical privacy laws. The lawsuit asserted that turning over such records would expose highly sensitive personal health information and undermine the confidentiality essential to medical care.
Under the settlement reached this week, the Justice Department agreed to withdraw requests for records that could reveal the identities of individual patients. The hospital will still be required to provide limited billing and insurance-related documents, but those materials must be redacted to remove identifying details.
In addition, the DOJ agreed to notify attorneys for the families if it later receives any documents that could identify specific patients.
Broader Federal Investigation Into Gender-Affirming Care
The subpoena was part of a wider enforcement campaign launched under Attorney General Pam Bondi, following a 2025 executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order directed federal agencies to restrict federal funding and increase oversight of gender-affirming medical care for minors.
The Justice Department has stated that its investigation focuses on potential violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Federal officials have argued that certain medications used in gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormones, may be promoted or prescribed in ways that fall outside approved labeling and regulatory standards.
The DOJ has sent similar subpoenas to more than 20 healthcare providers across the United States. In several cases, hospitals and clinics have challenged those demands in court, arguing that they exceed the government’s legal authority and infringe on patient privacy rights.
At least seven federal judges in recent months have limited or rejected DOJ attempts to obtain patient-level data, citing concerns about the scope of the subpoenas and the
protection of confidential medical information.
Hospital Program Closure Adds Pressure
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles previously announced plans to close its Center for Trans Youth Health and Development and Gender-Affirming Care, effective July 2025. The hospital cited growing regulatory uncertainty, financial pressures, and the changing legal landscape surrounding gender-affirming care as key factors in the decision.
The center had served nearly 3,000 patients and was one of the largest pediatric gender-affirming care programs in the nation. Its closure has been viewed by advocates as part of a broader trend in which hospitals scale back or eliminate services in response to increased political and legal scrutiny.
Healthcare providers and medical associations have warned that
aggressive enforcement actions and regulatory uncertainty could discourage hospitals from offering specialized care and could limit access to treatment for vulnerable patients.
DOJ Maintains Enforcement Authority
Despite withdrawing key portions of the subpoena, the Justice Department emphasized that it has not fully abandoned its investigation. A DOJ spokesperson said the agency withdrew some demands after the hospital indicated that certain records were not in its possession.
The department also reaffirmed its intent to continue pursuing investigations related to gender-affirming care for minors, consistent with the administration’s policy priorities.
Federal officials have framed the investigation as part of a broader effort to protect children and ensure compliance with federal drug and healthcare laws. Civil rights groups, however, argue that the enforcement campaign is politically motivated and improperly targets established
medical practices supported by major medical organizations.
Legal and Policy Implications
Legal experts say the settlement could have broader implications for how the federal government seeks patient data in healthcare investigations. The agreement reinforces the importance of medical privacy protections and may make it more difficult for the DOJ to obtain individualized patient records without a stronger legal basis.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is one of several lawsuits challenging federal actions related to gender-affirming care. Similar cases in other jurisdictions are testing the limits of federal authority, administrative law, and patient confidentiality standards.
Advocates for patient rights view the withdrawal as a significant step toward protecting families from intrusive government demands. They argue that medical decisions should remain between patients, families, and healthcare providers, rather than being subject to broad federal data requests.
Ongoing National Debate
The dispute reflects the broader national debate over gender-affirming care for minors, a topic that has become a focal point of political, legal, and cultural conflict. As federal and state governments continue to introduce new regulations and enforcement efforts, courts are increasingly being asked to balance government oversight against patient privacy and medical autonomy.
For healthcare providers, the case underscores the growing legal risks associated with offering gender-affirming care in a rapidly shifting regulatory environment. For families, it highlights the importance of legal safeguards to protect sensitive medical information.
As similar challenges continue nationwide, the outcome of this and related cases is expected to shape how federal agencies, hospitals, and courts handle patient data
, privacy rights, and the regulation of gender-affirming medical treatment going forward.
Explore new legal career opportunities and stay ahead in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Visit LawCrossing today to access thousands of attorney and legal professional job openings, expert career resources, and tools designed to help you advance your legal career with confidence.
