\n<\/p>\n
In an escalation<\/span> of its efforts to criminalize and eradicate trans healthcare, Donald Trump\u2019s administration has sent its first known criminal subpoenas to hospitals that have provided gender-affirming care for young trans people.\u00a0<\/p>\n New York University Langone received<\/a> a criminal grand jury subpoena last week from the US Attorney\u2019s Office in the Northern District of Texas demanding information about teens who received care from the hospital\u2019s now-shuttered trans youth health program, as well as information on the medical staff who provided that care.\u00a0<\/p>\n In accordance with a New York state shield law, the hospital posted a public notice<\/a> to inform affected patients. The notice also said \u201cseveral\u201d other institutions had received similar subpoenas, which the hospital said demands \u201cinformation pertaining to patients under the age of 18 who received gender affirming care\u201d between 2020 and 2026.<\/p>\n Previous administrative subpoenas<\/a> for confidential patient information have been reliably quashed<\/a> in courts around the country as blatantly unconstitutional, illegal intrusions into patient privacy. So far, these have been related only to civil investigations. The Langone subpoena means that the federal government has now launched a criminal investigation into trans youth healthcare providers, and in Northern Texas, a judicial district prone<\/a> to extreme<\/a>, right-wing<\/a> decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n What we do know for certain is that resisting every government demand here is the only acceptable path forward.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n It appears that providers, not the trans patients or their guardians, are the target of the criminal investigation. Since federal grand juries are the black<\/a> boxes<\/a> of the criminal legal system, little information is available about the details of the case. It is not even publicly known what charges the prosecutors could be pursuing. The subpoena demands sweeping information including medical records relating to any patients under 18 who received gender-affirming treatments, including puberty blockers, hormone treatments, or any other \u201cclinical services.\u201d What we do know for certain is that resisting every government demand here is the only acceptable path forward.\u00a0<\/p>\n When it comes to healthcare providers, New York\u2019s Shield Law<\/a> is specifically in place as a protection from out-of-state prosecution. But the law has not yet been robustly tested against a federal case.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe hospital may try to fight the subpoena, in whole or in part, in court \u2014 but because the federal government is strategically pursuing the case in one of the most conservative<\/a> courts in the country, Langone faces an uphill battle,\u201d S. Baum wrote<\/a> in the trans news and advocacy site Erin in the Morning. \u201cThis round of litigation could also put the efficacy of Shield Laws to the test.\u201d<\/p>\n The Justice Department\u2019s aim, whether or not the grand jury leads to prosecutions, is to further intimidate and harass healthcare providers and hospital administrators nationwide into preemptively ending services for trans young people. Many institutions, including NYU Langone, have already<\/a> complied and stopped providing such care. Convening the grand jury is yet another direct and immediate attack on trans kids and adults, and a threat to bodily autonomy and medical confidentiality more broadly.<\/p>\n We also know by now that the Constitution or our country\u2019s laws are no constraint on the Trump administration. Prosecutors and lawmakers will continue to throw everything they can against the wall until something sticks to establish a new political-legal reality \u2014 one usually achieved after a case winds its way up to a favorable federal judge, and eventually the far-right Supreme Court.\u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile, NYU Langone has shown itself to be an easy target. In response to threats from the federal government last year to withhold funding, the hospital ended<\/a> its Transgender Youth Health Program. Despite the fact that a federal court in April ruled that the government cannot withhold funding over trans healthcare provision, more than 40 hospital systems<\/a> have stopped providing necessary medical care to trans youth based on the Trump regime\u2019s threats.\u00a0<\/p>\n The fact that Langone already bent to Trump\u2019s demands by shuttering the program but is still facing a potential criminal probe only proves the folly of compliance. Should the hospital, or any other hospital system, supply federal prosecutors with patient\u2019s or worker\u2019s personal information, patients would be well within their rights to sue for HIPAA violations and potentially even civil rights violations given the discriminatory nature of the request. Patients and their families can also file a motion against the subpoena \u2014 a precedent that has been set when it comes to administrative subpoenas asking for trans patients\u2019 information.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf you capitulate, you\u2019ve actually opened yourself up to liability for selling out your constituents.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Earlier this year, for example, the families of six trans teens who had received treatment at the Children\u2019s Hospital Los Angeles filed<\/a> a motion to quash an administrative subpoena on behalf of themselves and more than 3,000 other transgender youth patients and families whose identities and private medical information the subpoena demanded. A settlement was reached, in which the government withdrew the subpoena requests seeking patient-identifying information and instructed Children\u2019s Hospital to redact all such information from any documents produced.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas \u2014 from the same district where the criminal grand jury is empanelled \u2014 ruled earlier this month that Rhode Island Hospital in Providence must comply with a Justice Department administrative subpoena for trans youth patient information, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and medical records. In response, the Rhode Island Office of Child Advocate filed<\/a> an emergency motion to quash the request. In a hearing over the motion in a Providence court, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy slammed<\/a> the Justice Department for conducting a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d by seeking medical records and patient information in a scrambling effort to criminalize healthcare provision; she also said the case was quite clearly \u201cshopped\u201d to Texas.\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For institutions and individuals, the stakes for resisting a criminal grand jury subpoena are higher. Individuals can be jailed and fined for the length of the grand jury in order to compel them to testify, and institutions can be slapped with hefty fines. But the consequences of giving in are graver still: Hospitals that capitulate to these demands could be subject to costly patient class action over privacy and rights violations. Institutions that hand over information are also aiding the potential criminal prosecution of medical care providers \u2014 an attack on the entire medical profession.<\/p>\n \u201cIf NYU Langone and other providers turn the confidential data of their patients over to the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for Northern Texas, everyone\u2019s privacy, everyone\u2019s healthcare, everyone\u2019s civil rights are compromised,\u201d Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller and congressional candidate, wrote<\/a> on Bluesky.<\/p>\n In March, a federal court ruled that a case brought by Columbia University students could proceed against the university. The lawsuit argues the university became a \u201cthird-party collaborator\u201d in unconstitutional actions when it supplied the names and disciplinary records of students involved in Palestine solidarity organizing. The court determined Columbia could be found liable as a \u201cstate actor\u201d for acting under government coercion to suppress student speech. Students and civil rights advocates sued the school for handing over student information in response to a congressional subpoena. While a civil, rather than a criminal, case, the finding should make institutions reflect on their readiness to comply with discriminatory and unconstitutional requests from this administration.\u00a0<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n