A legal dispute concerning the Justice Department's investigation into hospitals providing transgender-related drugs and surgeries to minors is intensifying, with federal judges in various states becoming involved in cases that some legal scholars argue exceed their jurisdictions. On June 10, 2026, a federal judge in Maryland considered a request for nationwide class-action protections against the DOJ's records requests, while a judge in California issued a temporary restraining order halting a Texas grand jury subpoena for patient records from a children's hospital.
The DOJ investigation, which began last summer, is examining whether hospitals and clinics violated federal laws related to fraud, misbranding of drugs, or improper billing practices in their treatment of minors. The investigation was initiated during the Trump administration, which sought records from hospitals nationwide.
In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin heard arguments regarding the certification of a nationwide class of families aiming to prevent the government from obtaining medical records of minors who received transgender treatments. Judge Rubin previously blocked a DOJ subpoena directed at Children’s National Hospital in Washington and questioned the precedent for certifying such a broad class.
In California, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a temporary restraining order preventing compliance with a Texas grand jury subpoena for records related to transgender treatments. This marked a reversal from an earlier decision where Pitts denied an emergency request to stop the subpoena. The parties involved agreed to a revised schedule for further proceedings.
The ongoing legal battles reflect broader jurisdictional disputes, with similar cases arising in other states, including Florida and Illinois, where federal courts have intervened in state enforcement actions. These developments have sparked criticism from legal observers concerned about federal overreach into state matters.
