A federal judge in New York has issued a significant ruling that prevents the Department of Justice from accessing sensitive medical records of transgender minors from hospitals in New York City. This decision comes through an emergency temporary restraining order, which was sought by families and patients who argued that these subpoenas were infringing upon their constitutional rights to privacy. The ruling is part of the lawsuit Coe v. Blanche, led by the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal, representing families and individuals affected by the DOJ’s demand for medical records.
The case centers on a grand jury subpoena issued to NYU Langone Hospitals by a US attorney in Texas, requiring information on patients treated for gender dysphoria while under 18 from January 2020 through May 2026. Previous attempts by the DOJ over the past year to acquire similar records from hospitals nationwide faced blocks by federal district courts, one of which criticized the government’s actions as unjustified “smokescreens” threatening the privacy of transgender youth.
Plaintiffs argue that these subpoenas not only violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—protecting against unreasonable search and seizure—but also breach doctor-patient confidentiality under New York law. The case represents all individuals who received treatment for gender dysphoria as minors at various city healthcare institutions. This legal battle underscores ongoing tensions as lawmakers and advocacy groups contest the intersection of privacy rights and government overreach in healthcare.
Chase Strangio of the ACLU expressed concern over the administration’s approach, stating that patient information should not be subject to “impermissible and harassing demands” from the government. Similarly, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan from Lambda Legal emphasized that medical care decisions should remain personal, free from political intrusion. The court has scheduled a follow-up hearing for July 8 to discuss extending the temporary block through a potential preliminary injunction, ensuring continued privacy protection for transgender minors while the case unfolds.
This decision reaffirms the delicate balance of privacy and state power in judicial settings, highlighting the ongoing legal discourse surrounding the rights of transgender individuals. Additional insights can be found in coverage from JURIST and other news outlets following these pivotal developments.