From Judge Jamal Whitehead (W.D. Wash.) in Queerdoc, PLLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice:
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” The order declared it “the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” stated these sexes are “not changeable,” and characterized “gender ideology” and “gender identity” as a “false claim.”
The following week, President Trump issued Executive Order 14187, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” 90 Fed. Reg. 8771. This order characterized gender-affirming medical care as “the maiming and sterilizing of a growing number of impressionable young children” and declared it “a stain on our Nation’s history” that “must end.” The order directed DOJ to “prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end deception of consumers, fraud, and violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
On April 22, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a memorandum titled “Preventing the Mutilation of American Children.” The memorandum promised that DOJ would “act decisively to protect our children and hold accountable those who mutilate them under the guise of care” and directed the Consumer Protection Branch of DOJ’s Civil Division to “undertake appropriate investigations of any violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by manufacturers and distributors engaged in misbranding by making false claims about the on- or off-label use of puberty blockers, sex hormones, or any other drug used to facilitate a child’s so-called ‘gender transition.'”
On June 11, 2025, DOJ’s Civil Division issued a memorandum stating it would “use all available resources to prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities” consistent with the Executive Orders and Attorney General’s directives. The Civil Division memo identified two investigative priorities: (1) “possible violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws” related to medications used in gender-affirming care, and (2) False Claims Act violations by providers who “evade state bans on gender dysphoria treatments by knowingly submitting claims to Medicaid with false diagnosis codes.”
That same day, DOJ served QueerDoc with an administrative subpoena under Section 248 of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which authorizes subpoenas to aid “[i]n any investigation of … a Federal health care offense.”
Founded in 2018, QueerDoc is a small telehealth provider that offers gender affirming care in ten states, including Washington. QueerDoc’s stated mission is “to raise the bar in gender affirming care and improve transgender and gender diverse lives through telemedicine-based direct clinical services.” QueerDoc asserts that it is a healthcare provider that prescribes medications, not a manufacturer or distributor of pharmaceutical products, and states that it does not participate in federal insurance programs or submit insurance claims, though it provides patients with superbills they can submit independently. QueerDoc now moves to quash the subpoena and seal the proceedings.
One day after QueerDoc filed its motions, DOJ issued a press release stating it had “sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children.” Attorney General Bondi declared that “[m]edical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice.”
DOJ’s subpoena to QueerDoc contains fifteen document requests seeking materials from January 2020 to present. The requests include:
- “Complete personnel files for each employee, contractor, or affiliate of the Company” (Request 1);
- “All documents, including billing records, insurance claims, internal protocols, or guidance, concerning the use of ICD (i.e., International Classification of Diseases) diagnosis codes” (Request 2);
- All communications with pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding the use of puberty blockers or hormones in connection with gender affirming care for minor patients (Requests 7–9);
- “Documents sufficient to identify each patient (by name, date of birth, social security number, address, and parent/guardian information) who was prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy” (Request 11);
- All medical records, diagnoses, and treatment documentation for these patients (Requests 12–13);
- All documents relating to billing or coding practices for gender-related care (Requests 4–6, 14–15).
In addition to investigating billing fraud as outlined in its June 11 memorandum, DOJ contends that its subpoena relates to its investigation of “whether off-label promotion and/or unlawful dispensing of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for use by minors violated federal law, including the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).” …
{[W]hen a federal agency issues a subpoena not to investigate legal violations but to intimidate and coerce providers into abandoning lawful medical care, it exceeds its legitimate authority and abuses the judicial process.} The question before the Court is whether DOJ may use its administrative subpoena power to achieve what the Administration cannot accomplish through legislation: the elimination of medical care that Washington and other states explicitly protect. The answer is no….
QueerDoc cites United States v. Powell (1964), for the proposition that administrative subpoenas must be issued “pursuant to a legitimate purpose.” In Powell, the Court found that the IRS did not need probable cause to issue an administrative subpoena seeking the production of corporate tax records from the president of a corporation. But the Court held that an administrative subpoena may not be enforceable if it “would be an abusive use of the court’s process[.]” An abuse of process occurs when a subpoena is “issued for an improper purpose, such as to harass the [recipient] or to put pressure on [it] to settle a collateral dispute, or for any other purpose reflecting on the good faith of the particular investigation.” …
The timeline tells the story here. First, Executive Orders declared gender-affirming care “a stain on our Nation’s history” that “must end.” The Attorney General then promised to “hold accountable those who mutilate [children] under the guise of care.” DOJ implemented these directives through administrative subpoenas. One day after QueerDoc challenged its subpoena, the Attorney General declared that providers who “mutilated children” would be “held accountable.” And within weeks, the White House celebrated that President Trump had “delivered” on his promise to “end” such care, listing hospitals that ceased providing these services.
This is not speculation about hidden motives—it is the Administration’s explicit agenda. The Government seeks the “intended effect” of its Executive Orders and these subpoenas to “downsize or eliminate” all gender-affirming care. No clearer evidence of improper purpose could exist than the Government’s own repeated declarations that it seeks to end the very practice it claims to be merely investigating.
The mismatch between DOJ’s stated investigation and QueerDoc’s actual operations further reveals the subpoena’s pretextual nature. The Attorney General directed investigations of “manufacturers and distributors engaged in misbranding” and providers submitting false insurance claims. QueerDoc is neither. It prescribes medications but does not manufacture or distribute them. It provides patients with superbills but does not submit insurance claims.
This mismatch is not just a technicality. It suggests that DOJ issued the subpoena first and searched for a justification second. No legitimate investigation would demand thousands of patient records from an entity that cannot, by definition, commit the violations being investigated. DOJ’s inability to articulate why it is investigating QueerDoc specifically—beyond noting it is a “prominent” provider—confirms that QueerDoc was targeted for what it does (provide gender-affirming care) rather than how it does it (through any unlawful means).
The breadth of the subpoena requests support this conclusion. For example, Request Numbers 11–13 demand a staggering amount of personal health data related to QueerDoc’s patients, including their names, dates of birth, social security number, address, medical diagnoses, and patient intake documents. These requests have little to do with investigating violations of FDCA or FCA. And Request Numbers 7–9 are facially overbroad, as they seek QueerDoc’s communications with manufacturers, sales representatives, marketing departments, and medical science liaisons regarding the treatment of gender dysphoria and the use of puberty blockers or hormones generally, not just those used “off-label.” …
“[A]n administrative subpoena … may not be so broad so to be in the nature of a ‘fishing expedition.'” Yet that is precisely what DOJ tries to do here, as it seeks to rifle through thousands of patient records hoping to find something—anything—to justify its predetermined goal of ending gender-affirming care….
But the court refused to seal the proceedings:
QueerDoc moves to seal these proceedings from public view, citing safety concerns and the sensitive nature of the medical information at issue. It also moves to quash the administrative subpoena, arguing that DOJ has weaponized its investigative authority to advance the Administration’s stated policy goal of eliminating gender-affirming care.
While the Court recognizes the sensitive nature of this matter and QueerDoc’s legitimate concerns about government overreach, the strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings requires denial of the motion to seal…. QueerDoc argues that administrative subpoenas investigating potential criminal violations should be sealed like grand jury proceedings, but this analogy fails…. [U]nlike grand jury subpoenas which are sealed by rule and tradition, Congress chose not to automatically cloak HIPAA administrative subpoenas in secrecy. [Further details omitted. -EV]
QueerDoc presents evidence that disclosure might harm its business and cause patients to seek other providers, but these concerns rest on “hypothesis or conjecture” rather than specific facts showing how public access to this litigation— as opposed to the investigation itself—would cause harm. The declaration from QueerDoc’s CEO establishes that forced production of patient records would damage the doctor-patient relationship, but QueerDoc fails to explain how unsealing legal proceedings about whether such production is required would independently cause harm beyond what DOJ’s public statements have already inflicted.
The Court recognizes the cruel irony here—DOJ issued its inflammatory press release declaring that medical professionals have “mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology,” one day after QueerDoc filed these motions, effectively destroying any claim to investigative confidentiality while attempting to sway public sentiment against healthcare providers like QueerDoc. Such conduct appears calculated to intimidate rather than investigate. Yet this troubling behavior by DOJ actually strengthens the case for transparency, not secrecy. The public has a right—indeed, a pressing need—to observe proceedings alleging executive agencies have abused their investigative powers to advance political agendas.
Accordingly, QueerDoc’s motion to seal is DENIED. However, the Court will permit redaction of specific patient and provider identifying information in any future filings, consistent with Local Civil Rule 5.2 and HIPAA privacy protections….
