Corporate Counsel Daily, Ninth Circuit revives DOJ subpoena dispute involving QueerDoc, remands remaining challenges, (Aug 19, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court found that the district court erred in finding improper purpose and returned overbreadth and burden issues for further review.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a Washington federal court order that had quashed a Department of Justice (DOJ) administrative subpoena issued to telehealth provider QueerDoc, PLLC, concluding that the provider failed to meet its burden of showing the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose. The appeals court held that the DOJ acted pursuant to statutory authority under HIPAA and that the district court improperly inferred bad faith from the executive branch's public policy positions and enforcement priorities. The panel remanded the case for the district court to consider unresolved arguments that the subpoena is overbroad and unduly burdensome (QueerDoc, PLLC, v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 25-7384 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026)).

Background. The litigation stems from a June 11, 2025, administrative subpoena issued by the DOJ to QueerDoc, a telehealth provider offering gender-affirming care in multiple states. The subpoena sought fifteen categories of records, including personnel files, billing and coding materials, communications with pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacies, and patient records concerning prescriptions for puberty blockers and hormone therapies.

In October 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted QueerDoc's motion to quash the subpoena (see DOJ subpoena to gender affirming care provider gets quashed, Oct. 31, 2025). The court concluded that the subpoena was issued for a purpose other than investigating potential violations of federal health care laws and instead served to pressure providers to discontinue offering gender-affirming care. The court also determined that the government's stated investigative rationale did not align with QueerDoc's business operations.

Subpoena authorized by statute. Reversing that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the DOJ satisfied the requirements for issuance of an administrative subpoena under HIPAA. The panel concluded that HIPAA authorizes investigations into potential violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), that the DOJ complied with applicable procedural requirements, and that the information sought was relevant to an authorized investigation. According to the opinion, the subpoena requests met the relatively low threshold applicable to administrative investigations. The panel stated that the requested records could be relevant both to potential FDCA violations by QueerDoc and to a broader investigation involving manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceuticals. The court further emphasized that agencies may seek information necessary to determine whether violations exist and are not required to establish violations before conducting an investigation.

Improper-purpose ruling rejected. The principal issue on appeal was whether the subpoena was issued for an improper purpose. The district court had relied on executive orders, DOJ memoranda, and public statements concerning gender-affirming care in concluding that the subpoena formed part of an effort to eliminate such care. The Ninth Circuit determined that this evidence was insufficient to establish bad faith or improper purpose.

The panel noted that administrative subpoena recipients bear a "heavy" burden when seeking to show improper purpose. It held that the Executive Branch's public opposition to gender-affirming care did not, by itself, demonstrate that an agency issued an otherwise authorized subpoena in bad faith. According to the opinion, the President may direct executive agencies to exercise statutory authority in a manner consistent with broader policy objectives, provided the agencies act within the law. The panel concluded that QueerDoc failed to present specific evidence that the DOJ acted to harass the provider, settle a collateral dispute, or pursue another recognized improper purpose.

Disagreement over investigative purpose. The opinion reflects a sharp divide between the majority and dissent regarding the significance of the government's public statements and the scope of judicial review. The majority concluded that the district court improperly treated Executive Branch policy views as evidence that the subpoena itself was invalid. It stated that the fact the investigation aligned with broader enforcement priorities did not establish bad faith where the subpoena otherwise satisfied statutory requirements.

Judge Richard A. Paez dissented. He wrote that the district court's finding of bad faith was not clearly erroneous and that the record supported the conclusion that the subpoena was intended to pressure providers to cease offering gender-affirming care rather than to pursue a good-faith investigation of federal health care offenses. The dissent also maintained that the government failed to establish the relevance of the requested materials to the stated investigatory purpose.

Overbreadth, burden issues remain unresolved. Although the Ninth Circuit reinstated the subpoena, it did not determine whether particular requests are overly broad or unduly burdensome. Those issues were not addressed by the district court after it quashed the subpoena on improper-purpose grounds. The appeals court remanded the case for consideration of those arguments in the first instance. In providing guidance for further proceedings, the panel stated that the parties should attempt to narrow disputes over document production and that objections based on burden must be supported by specific evidence. The opinion also indicated that the district court may consider privacy concerns associated with patient medical records and whether protective measures are warranted.

The case is No. 25-7384.

Judge: Bea, C.

Attorneys: Taylor Graham (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP) for QueerDoc, PLLC. Sarah Welch, U.S. Department of Justice, for U.S. Department of Justice.

Companies: QueerDoc, PLLC

MainStory: TopStory CaseDecisions FDCActNews GCNNews GeneralNews HIPAANews ReproductiveHealthCareNews AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews