9th Circuit Allows DOJ Probe into Gender-Affirming Telehealth Clinic

The Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court, permitting DOJ's subpoena against QueerDoc to proceed.

On August 14, 2026, a divided panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court injunction blocking the Department of Justice's subpoena to QueerDoc, a telemedicine provider of gender-affirming care. This ruling reinstates DOJ's investigation into personnel records, billing information, and patient data concerning puberty blockers and hormone therapies.

The subpoena is part of a broader federal healthcare fraud investigation initiated in June 2025, when DOJ issued more than 20 subpoenas targeting gender-affirming care providers nationwide. Several federal judges had previously quashed similar subpoenas, deeming them efforts to intimidate clinicians.

The Ninth Circuit majority underscored the president's authority to set law enforcement priorities aligned with policy objectives. Judge Carlos Bea wrote, "Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter)." The opinion also referenced ongoing scientific uncertainty and ethical debates surrounding gender-affirming care.

Opposing the subpoena, the American Civil Liberties Union, representing QueerDoc, termed the subpoena "overbroad and burdensome" and plans to continue defending the clinic in district court. California Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the DOJ's actions, stating the administration is "abusing its power in its bad faith crusade to subpoena gender-affirming care records." Bonta and 20 other attorneys general filed an amicus brief arguing the subpoena infringes on state regulatory authority and rests on flawed legal reasoning.

A group of 25 former DOJ officials also weighed in via an amicus brief, urging the Ninth Circuit to uphold the district court's injunction. Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics submitted an amicus brief affirming that off-label use of medications, including for gender-affirming care, is legally permissible and clinically appropriate when supported by evidence.

This ruling impacts ongoing debates over the legality and regulation of transgender health services and highlights tensions between federal enforcement actions and state medical regulation.

Yes, but: While the Ninth Circuit majority allowed the subpoena to proceed, the panel was divided, and opposing parties continue to contest the subpoena's scope and legitimacy in lower courts.

What's next: QueerDoc will resume legal challenges against the subpoena in district court, potentially prolonging litigation. Meanwhile, DOJ's investigation into gender-affirming care providers continues.