federal court, challenging the subpoena’s purpose and seeking to limit its scope. CHOP is willing to provide some business-related records, but not personal medical records, according to court filings.
On Sept. 22, 2025, five families of transgender CHOP patients filed a similar legal challenge of the subpoena. The families were represented by the Public Interest Law Center. The families’ litigation was rendered moot due to Kearney’s Nov. 21 ruling.
“Our litigation had two claims,” McKenzie explained. “First, the subpoena was issued in bad faith because it’s not a serious investigation. It’s an attempt to intimidate families from seeking gender-affirming care and hospitals from providing the care. Our second claim was that these children have a constitutional right to privacy that outweighs any alleged government interest in the information.”
Background
The Trump administration is investigating whether more than 20 health care providers nationwide — including CHOP — are violating the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) when providing gender-affirming care to trans youth, including those with gender dysphoria.
The FDCA was enacted by Congress in 1938 to ensure the safety of food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics.
On July 9, in a press release, Attorney General Pam Bondi said “[m]edical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice.” The DOJ investigations will cover alleged “healthcare fraud, false statements and more,” according to the press release.
Trans advocates are concerned the Trump administration’s goal is to criminalize gender-affirming care for minors, thus placing parents, doctors and guardians at risk for criminal prosecution.
Similar subpoenas have been quashed in the state of Washington and Massachusetts. However, 24 states have banned or limited gender-affirming care for trans youth and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Tennessee’s ban did not violate the Constitution.
Judge’s opinion
Kearney’s 77-page opinion, issued on Nov. 21., emphasizes the privacy interests of trans children and their families. Kearney also noted that the state — not the federal government — has the authority to regulate medical care, and gender-affirming care for minors is legal in Pennsylvania.
The Trump administration is wrongly citing the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to justify its investigations, Kearney added.
On Oct. 28, 16 jurisdictions, led by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and joined by Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the CHOP’s motion to limit the subpoena, Kearney noted.
After Kearney’s ruling, Shapiro issued this statement: “We just won in court to block the Trump administration from seizing the private medical records of patients at [CHOPl]. As long as I’m your Governor, I’ll protect your freedom to make health care decisions with your doctors and your family — not the federal government.”
Kearney’s opinion concluded that the DOJ failed to justify its issuance of CHOP’ subpoena. Kearney also noted the current “charged political environment” in which the subpoena was issued.
It’s not publicly known whether the DOJ will appeal Kearney’s ruling. Attorneys for the DOJ didn’t return PGN’s emails seeking comment.
Trump administration defends subpoena
In court filings, DOJ attorneys said subpoenas such as CHOP’s subpoena are routinely used to obtain medical, billing and related information in federal health care offense investigations. CHOP receives federal funding and government attorneys maintain they need to determine whether federal health care offenses have occurred at CHOP, according to court records.
An Oct. 6, legal declaration by Lisa K. Hsiao, acting director of the DOJ’s Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch, asserted: “CHOP’s Gender & Sexuality Development Clinic is one of the largest pediatric gender clinics in the country. Given the significant number of children treated at CHOP’s gender clinic — combined with [the government’s] knowledge that potential federal healthcare offenses may systematically be occurring in the provision of gender-related medical care for minors — the government has ample reason to suspect that such offenses may be occurring at CHOP.”
Hsiao’s declaration added: “This is a bona fide, high-priority and substantial national investigation of potential FDCA violations in the provision of gender-related care for minors. Substantial government resources have been assigned to it. It is being handled by several veteran, career prosecutors with many decades of experience in healthcare fraud and FDCA enforcement between them, supported by a team of document analysts and other forensic specialists. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has assigned agents and analysts to assist with various field activities and is employing advanced data analytics to identify prescribing patterns, potential unlawful off-label promotion, and patterns in reimbursement. The scope and coordination of these efforts reflect the seriousness with which the Government is pursuing potential violations of federal law.”
Attorney praises judge’s ruling
Mimi McKenzie, of the Public Interest Law Center, praised Kearney’s ruling.
“This is an important victory for patients of CHOP and their parents,” McKenzie said. “The court refused to condone the Department of Justice’s overreach. It found that the federal government had no authority to rummage through children’s sensitive medical records. The court’s decision is a complete rebuke of the Department of Justice, calling out their conduct and saying DOJ’s reasoning was ‘wayward’ and ‘not credible.’”
McKenzie blasted the DOJ for “essentially engaging in a fishing expedition for highly sensitive medical information.”
McKenzie reiterated that Kearney issued a solid ruling.
“The court got it right,” McKenzie continued. “The government’s supposed justification [for the subpoena] defies ‘both law and logic.’ There is no justification for this dragnet style investigation where you want every single piece of paper in a child’s medical record.”
Kearney’s ruling vindicates the privacy rights of trans children, she added.
“It’s a really important win and a very thorough takedown of the DOJ’s overreach,” McKenzie concluded. “The court’s opinion is well-reasoned and thorough. It’s also a victory for the rule of law when a court finds the federal government had no authority to be doing this.”
A spokesperson for CHOP couldn’t be reached for comment.
The post Judge sides with CHOP in trans controversy appeared first on Philadelphia Gay News.