Case Explained: QUEERDOC, PLLC V. DOJ – UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 Docket: 2:25-mc-00042- The ninth-circuit reversed the district court’s order quashing an administrative subpoena issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to QueerDoc, PLLC pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 18 U.S.C. § 3486, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The panel held that the DOJ satisfied its prima facie burden by demonstrating statutory authority under HIPAA to investigate potential violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s misbranding prohibitions, compliance with procedural requirements, and relevance of the requested documents to an authorized investigation into federal health care offenses. The court applied the standard that a recipient challenging a subpoena on grounds of “improper purpose” or bad faith bears a heavy burden to produce specific facts and evidence supporting such allegations. The panel concluded that QueerDoc failed to meet this burden because the Executive Branch’s public opposition to gender-affirming care and policy directives from the President were insufficient to prove that the DOJ issued the subpoena in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The court emphasized the presumption of regularity regarding government officials’ actions and affirmed that the President may direct the DOJ to exercise its statutory authority in a manner consistent with broader policy goals, provided those directives are implemented within the bounds of applicable law. On remand, the district court is instructed to consider QueerDoc’s arguments that the subpoena was overbroad and posed an undue burden, issues not addressed by the district court in its original ruling. The panel directed the parties to cooperate on narrowing the scope of discovery and noted that any determination limiting the subpoena must be supported by objective evidence regarding the volume of records, estimated work hours, and costs of compliance, rather than conclusory allegations. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.