A federal judge in Manhattan has temporarily blocked prosecutors from accessing the medical records of transgender patients treated at New York hospitals, raising constitutional concerns over privacy and the government’s motivations. The ruling came on Wednesday from Judge Katherine Polk Failla, who described the government’s subpoena as an improper effort to target a vulnerable population.

The Justice Department, acting under a grand jury subpoena issued in Texas, sought comprehensive records from hospitals including NYU Langone and Mount Sinai. The records pertain to transgender youth and young adults treated for gender dysphoria over a six-year period, as part of an investigation into alleged misbranding of medications used to delay puberty and facilitate gender transition. The probe centers on possible violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by drug manufacturers and distributors.

Judge Failla expressed skepticism regarding the government’s stated intention not to use the records to prosecute patients, questioning the breadth and sensitivity of the information sought. She characterized the government’s approach as an attempt to “demonize and eradicate an entire population” and found the subpoena to be “most egregious” and unconstitutional. The judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing the disclosure of the medical records and provisionally certified a class of plaintiffs that includes transgender youth under 18 receiving gender-affirming care in New York City since 2020, as well as young adults and their families.

The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the New York Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and other organizations, argue that the subpoena violates constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure and infringes on patients’ privacy rights. They contend the government is using the criminal investigation as a pretext after civil attempts to obtain such records were repeatedly denied by judges across the country.

This legal challenge unfolds amid broader disputes over gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Since 2025, more than two dozen states have enacted laws restricting or prohibiting such treatments for minors, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting these measures. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has sought to roll back protections and funding for transgender health care, including proposals to bar hospitals providing gender-affirming care from participating in Medicaid and Medicare programs and efforts to redefine gender dysphoria within federal disability policies.

Supporters of gender-affirming care emphasize that leading medical organizations endorse these treatments as critical for the well-being of transgender youth, citing research indicating that denying care can lead to negative health outcomes. Opponents question the safety and appropriateness of such interventions in minors.

The Justice Department has not publicly responded to the court’s ruling or the broader controversy over its investigative tactics. The case remains active, with further proceedings expected as the court weighs the legal and constitutional issues raised by the government’s subpoena and the defendants’ privacy claims.