Amid an ongoing legal battle with the U.S. Department of Justice, families of minors who received gender affirming care at two Pennsylvania hospitals continue to push back against subpoenas for sensitive patient information.
In two separate, parallel cases, lawyers for the families whose children were treated at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center have filed motions to quash subpoenas—which seek patient names, addresses, social security numbers, and more. Lawyers in both cases say the DOJ is weaponizing the government and its resources against a group it opposes politically.
“These are highly private and sensitive records relating to a group they [the DOJ] have a very strong opinion on,” said Jill Steinberg, partner at Ballard Spahr Law Firm.
Ballard Spahr and the Public Interest Law Center represent the families
Last week the DOJ filed declarations in both cases citing several reasons the motions to quash were allegedly unlawful.
As indicated in the reply from the families’ lawyers, the DOJ claimed the motions interfered with the governments’ collection of information in a timely manner and violated the “sovereign immunity” principle.
But lawyers for the families said neither time barring nor sovereign immunity apply and argued that the subpoenas were issued in “bad faith.”
“It’s no secret, nor is it ‘political rhetoric’ that DOJ is using these subpoenas to end gender affirming care in states like Pennsylvania where it remains legal,” the response states. “They admit that purpose while they celebrate that it is working. Movants, patients who were receiving this recognized, legal care, are injured by DOJ’s issuance of this subpoena.”
The larger battle
The DOJ announced in July it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to medical institutions and individual doctors who have provided gender affirming care to minors.
The DOJ’s press release stated it was investigating “healthcare fraud” and “false statements.”
“Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in the release.
READ: On Day One, President Trump Pits His Administration Against Transgender People
Initially, two medical institutions challenged the subpoenas. Boston Children’s Hospital filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and won. CHOP filed a motion to limit the subpoena, agreeing to provide only partial information. The case is still ongoing.
Steinberg said after the first two challenges and the success in Boston, families of patients at both facilities reached out to the PILC, which joined with Ballard Spahr to represent them.
PILC noted these challenges in court were the first to come directly from patients and families.
Medical privacy at stake
The DOJ subpoenas in July drew varying responses from medical institutions across the country. While CHOP continues to fight the subpoenas, UPMC has reportedly stopped providing gender affirming care to individuals under the age of 19, which has drawn criticism from trans youth advocates.
In a legal filing on behalf of CHOP in its case to limit the subpoena, CHOP’s counsel argued that complying with the full scope of the records request could put all of CHOP’s patients at risk in the future.
“The subpoenaed records reveal the most intimate, sensitive, and often painful details of their young lives … but DOJ’s extraordinary demand not only harms the patients whose records are at issue; it also threatens the relationship CHOP shares with all of its patients—a relationship built on trust that cannot survive if that trust is breached,” the filing states.
READ: Will Pennsylvania Finally Ban ‘LGBTQ+ Panic’ Defense?
Steinberg echoed the wider concern for medical privacy, noting that opposition should be universal.
“Take it out of the space that this applies to one particular population,” she said.
“When you go to a doctor for anything at all you expect your information to be held [private].”
“[If] a year or two later the government decides it doesn’t agree with what you’re doing and chooses to base a criminal case against you,” she continued. “It can happen to anyone at any moment.”
Bucks County voice weighs in
Jennifer H (she/they) is a transgender individual who has been transitioning and receiving gender affirming care for the past 10 years.
She recently became president of PFLAG Bucks County, a group that provides support to LGBTQ+ people and their families locally, though she said she didn’t start out with the intention to become an advocate.
“Unfortunately, with the state of how things are today, you have to be an advocate to be yourself,” Jennifer said. “We have been largely politicized.”
In response to the DOJ’s assertion that gender affirming care providers “mutilated children,” Jennifer said she believes the transgender community, and minors seeking treatment for gender dysphoria, have been misrepresented.
“People want this [gender affirming care] to be seen like it’s different than what it is,” she said. “They use sensationalism.”
Jennifer said the biggest misnomer she’s heard is that young children are being prescribed puberty blockers and undergoing surgery.
“There’s this idea of this huge medical system benefitting from little kids … and that just isn’t happening.”
In their years of working with families, Jennifer said she remember only one case in which a minor, aged 17, underwent surgery. Jennifer said the teen had shown indications of suicidal thoughts.
“Either [the parents] are going to lose their child, or they’re going to choose surgery … which goes to show how serious gender dysphoria can be,” Jennifer said.
Reflecting back on her own life, Jennifer said she also considered suicide as a teen. She said that if gender affirming care had been a commonly discussed topic while she was growing up, she might have had an easier time connecting with her parents.
“There wasn’t a wide understanding of what gender identity was,” Jennifer said. “What these kids have today is the opportunity to put words to the feelings that we’ve all had.”
She said they believe it’s “critical” to continue the fight to keep gender affirming care available. “To deny people with gender dysphoria access to gender affirming care is like denying people with diabetes access to insulin.”
“I’ve known so many people that, if they’d had the opportunity to feel loved and accepted when they were [teens], they’d still be alive today,” Jennifer added.