Judge temporarily blocks DOJ subpoenas in transgender-care probe

A federal judge in Manhattan has temporarily blocked Justice Department subpoenas seeking medical records tied to transgender care at New York hospitals, halting the government’s access to the material while the case moves toward a July 8 hearing.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla said the subpoenas likely ran afoul of constitutional protections against government overreach and improper searches and seizures, according to the Associated Press. The order is an immediate setback for a federal effort aimed at highly sensitive patient records.

The subpoenas are part of a criminal probe tied to potential misbranding of FDA-approved drugs. The Justice Department declined to comment after the ruling.

The subpoena fight

NYU Langone said in a public notice that it received a grand jury subpoena on May 7 from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas. The hospital said the request sought information on patients under 18 who received gender-affirming care between 2020 and 2026, along with the names of providers and others involved in that care.

AP reported that the subpoenas covered a six-year period, from Jan. 1, 2020, to May 5, 2026, and that at least 40 people received treatment at NYU Langone alone during that window. Earlier reporting indicated the requests were not limited to one institution.

The dispute has drawn close attention because it involves minors and young adults who received gender-affirming treatment, as well as the privacy rights attached to their medical records. Plaintiffs in the case include minors, parents and young adults who received care in New York City.

How the case developed

The legal fight began with the spring subpoena effort. NYU Langone said it was evaluating its response when it notified patients, and it emphasized that it takes patient privacy seriously.

The hospital also said the subpoena was part of a broader request that had already reached multiple institutions. Earlier reporting said NYU Langone was one of several hospitals that received similar subpoenas.

NYU Langone said its transgender youth care program ended in February 2026. That timeline places the subpoena campaign in the middle of a broader federal push to scrutinize gender-affirming care for minors.

New York shield law is also relevant to the dispute. Under that law, entities must make a reasonable attempt to notify affected individuals at least 30 days before complying with certain protected-health requests.

Why the ruling matters

Failla’s temporary order does not end the case. It pauses access to the records while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction after more evidence is presented.

The ruling goes to the center of the dispute: how far federal prosecutors can go in seeking medical records from hospitals when those records involve transgender patients, especially minors.

The case also highlights a sharp conflict over the purpose of the inquiry. The Justice Department has said the investigation concerns potential drug misbranding. Plaintiffs and their allies argue the subpoena campaign is a pretext to obtain private records and dismantle transgender health care.

That conflict matters beyond the immediate case because it could shape how hospitals respond to future government demands for protected health information, particularly in politically sensitive investigations.

What happens next

The next major court date is July 8, when Failla is scheduled to hear additional evidence before deciding whether to turn the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.

That hearing will likely determine how long the records remain out of federal hands and whether the court imposes broader protections for affected patients.

For now, the temporary block gives hospitals and plaintiffs a short-term reprieve while the underlying investigation and legal fight continue. The Justice Department has not publicly signaled whether it will seek to narrow the order or appeal.

The case remains active, and the July hearing will be the next key test of whether the federal subpoena effort can proceed or whether the court will extend its limits on access to the records.