A federal judge has referred attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice for potential disciplinary action concerning their conduct during a legal dispute over a subpoena involving a Rhode Island hospital. The subpoena was related to the hospital’s provision of gender-affirming care to transgender youth.
Judge Mary McElroy, appointed by President Trump, highlighted issues with the DOJ’s approach after quashing the subpoena last month. According to McElroy, DOJ lawyers misrepresented facts and withheld information to coerce Rhode Island Hospital into compliance.
Concerns Over DOJ’s Conduct
The decision to quash the subpoena aligned with other federal courts that rejected similar expansive subpoenas. McElroy pointed out the lack of trust in the DOJ’s enforcement of its authority, stating, “DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case.”
In her ruling, McElroy criticized the DOJ for taking the case to a Texas judge perceived as favorable to its position, rather than addressing the concerns in her court.
Details of the Subpoena
The subpoena demanded sensitive information from Rhode Island Hospital, including birth dates and Social Security numbers of patients receiving transgender care. It also requested documents about potential side effects of treatments, assessments for puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and related patient forms.
The DOJ argued that these records were necessary to investigate potential fraud or unlawful promotion of drugs. During a Rhode Island hearing, they mentioned concerns over “misbranding” of FDA-approved drugs, such as puberty blockers. The department suggested financial incentives might influence doctors’ prescriptions of these drugs.
McElroy’s Rejection and DOJ’s Response
Judge McElroy dismissed the DOJ’s reasoning, expressing concern over the administration’s view of gender-affirming care. She accused the DOJ of using the subpoena campaign to discourage hospitals from offering care to minors.
The DOJ intends to appeal McElroy’s decision. In a statement, the DOJ’s Civil Division firmly denied McElroy’s allegations of misconduct. They stated, “Such accusations against Department attorneys are rare and serious. The Department treats them accordingly and is committed to taking all appropriate remedial action where warranted.”
The Civil Division has reviewed the case and concluded that the accusations lack merit. They stand by their attorneys and are challenging the District Court’s decision.
The article includes contributions from The Associated Press.