Judge temporarily blocks subpoenas for transgender patients' records at New York hospitals

A federal judge in Manhattan has temporarily blocked federal prosecutors in Texas from obtaining transgender patients’ medical records from New York hospitals, pausing a dispute that has drawn privacy, constitutional and transgender-rights concerns into a single court fight.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on June 24, preventing the government from moving ahead for now with subpoenas aimed at records held by hospitals including NYU Langone and Mount Sinai. The case centers on highly sensitive information tied to gender-affirming care.

The temporary block does not end the case. It holds the records request in place while the court considers whether to issue a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

How the case reached court

The dispute traces back to a federal grand jury subpoena sent to NYU Langone on May 7, 2026, according to later reporting cited in the case materials. The request became part of a broader federal investigation that reached into treatment records for transgender patients in New York.

AP reported that the Justice Department said the records were sought as part of a probe into potential misbranding of FDA-approved drugs. That explanation put the case at the intersection of criminal procedure, health regulation and a broader political fight over gender-affirming care.

The records at issue cover treatment from January 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026. AP reported that at least 40 people were treated at NYU Langone alone during that period.

What the judge blocked

Failla’s order temporarily stops federal prosecutors from obtaining the records while the court examines the legal challenge. The ruling gives hospitals and patients short-term protection as the dispute continues.

According to AP, the judge said the government’s effort was unconstitutional and targeted sensitive records belonging to a uniquely vulnerable group. That reasoning goes to the heart of the case: whether prosecutors can use criminal subpoenas to reach medical information protected by privacy rules and constitutional limits.

The order applies to subpoenas directed at New York hospitals, including NYU Langone and Mount Sinai, and covers records tied to transgender patients who received gender-affirming care over the six-year window.

Why the records matter

The fight has become a test of how far federal prosecutors can go when seeking medical records from providers in another state. It also raises the question of whether transgender patients and their families may be chilled from seeking care if private records can be pulled into a criminal probe.

That concern is especially significant because the records involve minors and young adults, a group advocates say is already vulnerable to exposure and pressure.

Hospitals in New York must also navigate state protections for sensitive health information. The challenge argues that federal prosecutors should not be able to override those protections so easily.

Reactions from the institutions

NYU Langone said it takes patient privacy seriously and was evaluating its response to the subpoena, according to the research packet’s source summary.

The Justice Department declined to comment after the ruling, AP reported.

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the groups involved in the challenge, alongside transgender minors, parents and young adults who received care. Their position, as reflected in the reporting, is that the subpoenas are too broad and threaten deeply private medical information.

What happens next

The court has set a follow-up hearing for July 8, 2026, when the parties will argue over whether the temporary block should become a preliminary injunction.

Between now and then, the federal government may continue to contest the ruling or narrow its request for records. The plaintiffs and hospitals are likely to press their arguments that the subpoenas overreach and that the privacy interests are unusually strong.

The case is likely to remain closely watched because it combines criminal law, medical confidentiality and the federal government’s scrutiny of gender-affirming care.

For now, the immediate effect of Failla’s order is clear: the subpoenas are paused. The broader question will return to court on July 8, when the judge will decide whether that pause becomes a longer-term block.