A Judge Just Blocked the DOJ From Seizing Trans Kids' Medical Records at Stanford — the Third Such Loss in Weeks

A federal judge has blocked the Department of Justice from getting its hands on the medical records — and the identities — of transgender minors treated at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. It is the third time in a matter of weeks that a court has stepped in to stop the same tactic.

On Thursday, July 3, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a preliminary injunction in Z.A. v. Blanche, ordering the DOJ, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and anyone acting on their behalf not to request, receive, or otherwise obtain records that would identify Packard patients as having sought or received gender-affirming care, disclose their diagnoses or clinical assessments, or reveal the consent and parental-authorization paperwork tied to that care.

In plain terms: the government wanted a list of which children had received this care, along with their files. The court said no.

What the government was after — and what the judge said

The records at stake were not a handful of files. The DOJ’s demand covered patients numbered in the “tens of thousands,” and the injunction protects a provisionally certified class of everyone who received gender-affirming care at Stanford while under 18 between January 1, 2020, and May 5, 2026 — the day before a grand jury subpoena was issued.

Judge Pitts did not treat the subpoena as a routine investigative step. He described it as part of a “bad-faith campaign to intimidate hospitals into halting the lawful provision of gender-affirming care.” That is unusually direct language from the bench, and it goes to motive: the court found that the point of demanding the records was not to build a specific case but to make providing the care feel dangerous enough that hospitals would stop.

The procedural history reinforces the picture. The DOJ first went after Packard’s patient records with an administrative subpoena in July 2025. It withdrew that subpoena in May 2026 — then served a nearly identical grand jury subpoena on the hospital the very next day. Swapping an administrative demand for a grand jury one changes the legal machinery but not the target.

Part of a pattern — in both directions

This is the third time a judge has intervened to stop the Justice Department from obtaining gender-affirming care records through grand jury subpoenas. In late June, a judge blocked a similar effort aimed at minors treated at NYU Langone and other New York hospitals. The Stanford ruling now adds California to the map.

The courts, in other words, have so far functioned as a check. That matters, because much of the recent news out of Washington and the Supreme Court has run the other way. Just days earlier, the Supreme Court declined to disturb state bans on transgender girls in school sports, and the broader federal posture toward trans healthcare has been one of active hostility. Against that, a string of lower-court injunctions protecting patient privacy is a real — if partial and reversible — line of defense.

Why the privacy piece matters so much

It would be easy to read this as a narrow discovery dispute. It isn’t. For trans young people and their families, the fear that a diagnosis or a course of care could be handed to federal prosecutors is not abstract; it shapes whether people seek care at all. A subpoena that names patients turns a medical record into a potential exposure. Blocking it keeps the clinic a clinic rather than a source of evidence.

The injunction is preliminary, which means the underlying fight continues and the government can appeal. But for now, the files stay where they belong — with the patients and their doctors — and the judge’s finding of “bad faith” will follow the DOJ into whatever comes next.

This piece touches on healthcare access for a vulnerable group; if you or someone you know is struggling, support is available, and we’re happy to help point you toward the right resources.

Sources: The Advocate, The Stanford Daily, CNN, NationofChange.