Posted on 08/14/2026 12:55:58 PM PDT by CFW
A federal appeals court just handed DOJ a win in its investigation of a telehealth clinic that prescribes gender-transition treatment, including to minors.
QueerDoc, a Washington-based practice, got a HIPAA subpoena from DOJ demanding 15 categories of records: personnel files, billing data, communications with drug manufacturers, and patient medical records and consent forms. DOJ has argued that the clinic's webpages promoting off-label puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones count as unlawful drug "labeling" under the FDCA's misbranding provisions.
A district judge quashed the subpoena in its entirety, finding the DOJ issued it to advance the administration's declared goal of ending gender-transition treatment for minors.
Today the Ninth Circuit reversed, 2-1, putting the subpoena back in play.
Judge Bea, writing for the majority, asserted that the Executive Branch's public opposition to gender-transition treatment "is insufficient to show that an agency within the Executive Branch issued an otherwise permissible HIPAA subpoena in bad faith." Proving improper purpose takes specific evidence, not inferences from policy statements, Bea asserted. Officials get a presumption of regularity and setting enforcement priorities is the president's job.
Judge Paez offered a vigorous dissent. DOJ "submitted essentially nothing" defending the subpoena, he wrote, while "there is a mountain of evidence that corroborates that DOJ used the threat of criminal investigation to pressure health care providers to stop offering gender-affirming care."
He warned the majority's rule turns judicial review into a formality whenever an administration dresses a political campaign in statutory clothing.
The case now goes back to the district court, which still has to decide whether individual requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome. The demand for patient records is the one to watch.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Here is the ruling from today
A man in the country for close to 30 years has been removable for almost 15 years based on pleading guilty to a drug crime in 1997. Judge Bove orders his removal. But that's not all. In a unanimous published opinion, he significantly curtails dilatory immigration proceedings. This is HUGH!(as Trump would say).
Judge Bove lists five reasons that are not enough to allow for this (fourth) reopening of removal proceedings. There is "always public interest in prompt execution of removal orders" and that is "heightened" where, as here, the alien abused the process.
Also notable. The deportable alien tried to expunge his 1997 conviction in 2026--with the explicit intent to stop his deportation. That "came very close to crossing the line between zealous advocacy and bad-faith dilatory frivolity." Called out!
Can members of the armed services arrest trespassers to National Defense Areas without violating Posse Comitatus Act? Yes. That includes NDAs at the Southern Border as well as the illegal immigrant trespassers. This unlocks a lot of border security manpower.
Judge Murphy has no leg to stand on.
These bastards who do this stuff to kids should get the death penalty
Judge Murphy concurs, joined by three other judges. He agrees with Judge Nalbandian's panel dissent. But he does not think the procedural issues are worthy of full court review. "Nothing in the majority...prevents the DOJ from" fixing the record and leading the path forward.
Judge Griffin dissents from this "exceptionally important case." "In refusing to disclose Michigan’s Qualified Voter File, defendant Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson asserts two meritless, technical defenses." Griffin is quite temperate. This is, for him, a fiery dissent.
Judge Thapar's writing is clear and persuasive. "We’re already seeing the ripple effects of the panel’s error. Since the panel’s decision, district courts in our circuit have been forced to bless other states’ defiance of Title III’s plain command." Worth reading
“”Also, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered opponents of the White House ballroom to respond by noon Tuesday to the Trump administration’s request to pause an injunction blocking its construction, set to take effect August 21.”””
There response will be..He can’t build it because it hurts our feelings and stuff. ORANGE MAN BAD defense.
There response will be..He can’t build it because it hurts our feelings and stuff. ORANGE MAN BAD defense.
That’s pretty much the argument.
I can’t believe courts have given standing to a woman who sometimes walks by the White House and doesn’t like the look of the proposed addition.
QueerDoc, a Washington-based practice, got a HIPAA
subpoena from DOJ demanding 15 categories of records:
<><>personnel files,
<><>billing data,
<><>communications with drug manufacturers,
<><>patient medical records and consent forms.
DOJ says the clinic’s webpages promoting off-label puberty blockers and cross-sex
hormones count as unlawful drug “labeling” under the FDCA’s misbranding provisions.
An uncle and nephew in the country illegally tried to stay. They also claimed they are citizens by virtue of a grandmother. Well, they can't bring that suit in court, per Judge Southwick. No jurisdiction. Also, several very bad, possibly hallucinated, citations.
Judge Ho concurs, and weighs in on some of the pressing issues relating to the legality of birthright citizenship. Good history rejecting the constructive presence doctrine. And then the discussion gets juicy: to what are Alien Enemies entitled?
Only 18 pages and well worth the read.
Thx.......best part.
They lack the standard statutory rights and hearings provided under ordinary U.S. immigration law.However, they are still entitled to limited constitutional protections determined by the courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.