A federal judge has blocked a Justice Department subpoena seeking the medical records, home addresses and Social Security numbers of transgender minors treated at Boston Children’s Hospital, saying the subpoena was “motivated only by bad faith.” U.S. District Judge Myong Joun found the request appeared aimed at interfering with Massachusetts’ protection of gender-affirming care and at harassing the hospital and its patients.
Boston Children’s Hospital, which court records say housed the nation’s first pediatric and adolescent transgender health program, said the ruling protects the privacy of its patients, their families and health-care professionals. "Boston Children’s Hospital is grateful for the court’s ruling, which safeguards the privacy of our patients, their families, and the healthcare professionals who provide their care," the hospital said in a statement to TIME. "Access to gender-affirming care is a protected right under Massachusetts law, and we remain committed to providing safe, evidence-based, and compassionate care for every patient and their family."
The subpoena was one of more than 20 issued this summer by the Department of Justice to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care to minors, according to court filings. The DOJ sought identifying information and medical records at a time when the Biden-era Justice Department’s Civil Division was directed by a memorandum from Attorney General Bondi in April to investigate the use of gender-affirming treatments for young people. Bondi’s memo called for action to "protect our children" and to assess what the Department characterized as "false claims" about puberty blockers and sex hormones.
A DOJ spokesperson said after the judge’s ruling that the Department would continue to enforce laws and protect children. "As Attorney General Bondi has made clear, this Department of Justice will use every legal and law enforcement tool available to protect innocent children from being mutilated under the guise of 'care,'" the spokesperson told TIME.
The legal action comes amid a broader federal push to restrict access to gender-affirming care. In January, President Trump signed an executive order stating the federal government would not "fund" or "support" gender transitions for people 19 or younger. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report questioning gender-affirming care for youth and suggesting alternative approaches framed as "exploratory therapy," a stance at odds with the positions of major medical groups.
Major professional associations including the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, along with other leading medical bodies, support gender-affirming care and have warned against practices that attempt to change a child’s gender identity. Research cited by multiple medical organizations indicates that surgical interventions are rarely, if ever, used to treat minors with gender dysphoria in the United States and that gender-affirming treatments can be safe and, in many cases, life-saving.
Some clinics that provide gender-affirming care have closed in recent months, citing threats from the federal government to withhold funding from institutions that continue such treatments for transgender and nonbinary youth. Advocates and LGBT organizations said the subpoena campaign amounted to intimidation and posed a risk to patient privacy.
"The federal government’s unhinged campaign against best practice care should alarm every family who knows that health care decisions belong with them and that their private data should be protected," a GLAAD spokesperson said in a statement to TIME, welcoming the court's decision.
Judge Joun’s ruling emphasized the apparent intent behind the subpoena, stating that the administration had been explicit about its disapproval of the transgender community and its aim to curtail gender-affirming care. He characterized the subpoena as an attempt to interfere with Massachusetts’ authority to regulate medical care within its borders and to dissuade patients from seeking care.
The ruling protects the hospital and its patients from the specific demands of that subpoena, but it does not resolve broader legal fights over federal and state authority, the scope of investigatory powers and the legal status of gender-affirming care under federal policy. The hospital said it remains committed to providing care and protecting patient confidentiality as litigation continues.
Advocates for transgender patients said the decision underscores privacy concerns and the potential chilling effect of federal scrutiny on medical providers. Legal experts say the case could factor into ongoing debates over federal enforcement actions and the protection of health-care records, particularly where state law shields treatments that federal agencies question or oppose.