Breaking: Federal judge in Pittsburgh blocks DOJ's invasive trans care subpoena

The latest loss for DOJ, regarding the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's patients, also brings news that DOJ has started scaling back its requests following its many losses.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Pittsburgh blocked parts of the Justice Department’s invasive subpoena seeking personally identifiable information about those minor transgender patients at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center who are or have received gender-affirming medical care.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon joined at least four other judges in ruling against the Justice Department’s unusual requests — and is the first known judge to do so in a case brought by the current and former patients.

Bissoon, an Obama appointee, noted that “no reported federal decision has ruled in the government’s favor“ in challenges to the subpoenas before joining with those judges in quashing the requests for personally identifiable information of patients.

In the wake of its many losses in challenges to the subpoenas that was issued in June to 20 providers of gender-affirming medical care for trans minors, and despite its appeals, it does appear that DOJ has blinked.

As detailed in a December 16 filing, DOJ announced that it had “narrowed the scope of the subpoena to accept only anonymized patient medical records in full satisfaction of the challenged requests in the subpoena“ following conversations with the counsel for UPMC that were detailed in a December 15 email:

Of that briefing, Bissoon was blunt that the move would not stop her from ruling on the patients’ request:

In the face of its mounting losses, the government recently filed here a “Motion to Allow Supplemental Briefing.” … The proposed additional briefing is to address the government’s concession that it will accept “anonymized” medical records in full satisfaction of the challenged requests. While the Court appreciates the concession, it nevertheless will grant Plaintiffs’ request for relief.

As with a case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Bissoon’s order is limited to three provisions specifically addressing identifiable information about minor patients:

Finding that patients have standing to challenge the subpoena, Bissoon stated, “[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill-intent. This is apparent from its rhetoric.”

She continued, quoting DOJ’s handiwork:

Bissoon also noted the inherent tension with the arguments made before — and by — the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Skrmetti over bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.

“Notably, The government’s diktat,” Bissoon wrote of the DOJ efforts, “flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, wherein the majority repeatedly emphasized the reservation of these matters to the States.” After quoting from all of the majority opinions in the Skrmetti case to that end, she wrote, “The government cannot pick and choose the aspects of Skrmetti to honor, and which to ignore.“

This is a breaking news report. Check back at Law Dork for the latest.