Highlights
- On Sept. 9, 2025, the Western District of Massachusetts issued In re: Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-019, quashing an administrative subpoena that sought the production of information related to the provision of gender-affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital and finding that the federal government failed to show a proper purpose for the subpoena.
- On Oct. 27, 2025, the Western District of Washington rejected a similar administrative subpoena on the same grounds in QueerDoc, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Justice, after the federal government sought broad categories of documents related to gender-affirming care from a telehealth provider.
- Both cases are outliers in that recipients of administrative subpoenas do not often file motions to quash because the standard for enforcement of a subpoena is a low bar for the government to meet, while the standard for proving that the government issued the subpoena for an improper purpose is difficult to satisfy.
In a rare move, two federal district courts quashed administrative subpoenas, finding they were issued for an improper government purpose. On Dec. 2, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a third case involving a First Amendment challenge to a state subpoena, addressing the scope of government subpoena authority and the options available to subpoenaed entities seeking to challenge investigatory subpoenas.
The District Court Cases
In re: Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-019 and QueerDoc, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Justice involve similar issues but two different types of healthcare providers. The federal government issued broad subpoenas to these providers pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3486, a statute authorizing the issuance of an administrative subpoena “[i]n any investigation of . . . a Federal health care offense.” The stated purpose of both subpoenas was to investigate illegal off-label promotion of drugs in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and improper billing under the False Claims Act in the context of gender-affirming care. The states in which the subpoenas were issued (Massachusetts and Washington) have statutory or constitutional protections, or both, for gender-affirming care. Each district court noted the numerous public statements and Executive Orders expressing disapproval of gender-affirming care issued by the current administration in the preceding months. Against this backdrop, both courts quashed the subpoenas, finding that the subpoenas were issued for an “improper purpose” and motivated by “bad faith.”
The Administrative Subpoena case emphasized that any subpoena issued under Section 3486 “must be limited to the healthcare fraud that is authorized [for investigation] by the statute: fraudulent billing codes and unlawful off-label promotion.” That court ultimately concluded that the government failed to show a proper purpose for the subpoena by pointing to the overly broad requests; the lack of evidence that Boston Children’s Hospital was “actually engaging” in the alleged illegal activity; the current administration’s “explicit” disapproval of gender-affirming care; and the conflict between the stated purpose of the subpoena and the gender-affirming care protections built into the Massachusetts constitution. Instead, the district court found that “[i]t is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ right to protect [gender-affirming care] within its borders, to harass and intimidate [Boston Children’s Hospital] to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.”
In QueerDoc, the district court quashed the subpoena on similar grounds, citing public statements from the Administration opposing gender-affirming care, the breadth of the requests, and a “mismatch” between the government’s “stated investigation” and QueerDoc’s “actual operations.” Notably, while QueerDoc can prescribe medications as a telehealth provider, it does not manufacture or distribute medication, and it does not submit insurance claims. Therefore, the court found that QueerDoc’s operations were not within the purview of the government’s investigation, which was specifically focused on “manufacturers and distributors engaged in misbranding” and “providers submitting false insurance claims.” Overall, the Western District of Washington found that the government “has abandoned good faith investigation in favor of policy enforcement through prosecutorial coercion” and that the “subpoena serves to pressure providers to cease offering gender-affirming care rather than to investigate specific unlawful conduct.”
Both cases signal enhanced judicial scrutiny of the government’s stated purpose for issuing an administrative subpoena and create additional grounds for challenging government subpoenas.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin
On Dec. 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin. This case involves a state-issued subpoena rather than one issued by the federal government. There, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a subpoena to a pregnancy center that included a request for donor information. The pregnancy center initially filed an emergency action in federal court, raising First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court held that the action was not ripe because the state court had not yet enforced the subpoena. Simultaneously, the New Jersey state court enforced the subpoena without reaching the constitutional questions. After prolonged proceedings, the Third Circuit found that First Choice’s claims were still unripe due to the ongoing state proceedings and because the constitutional claims could be asserted and addressed in state court. First Choice maintains that the Third Circuit’s ruling deprives it of a federal forum in which to raise its constitutional claims.
The key question in front of the Supreme Court is whether the recipient of a state investigatory subpoena can immediately challenge the subpoena on First Amendment grounds in federal court or if the recipient must first litigate such constitutional claims in state court. Like Queerdoc and In re: Administrative Subpoena, the Supreme Court’s decision will address the scope of a government’s subpoena power and a subpoenaed entity’s avenues for challenging an investigatory subpoena.
Practical Implications
These cases are particularly meaningful for recipients of government subpoenas. Historically, recipients have had very limited options to challenge a government subpoena, and moving to quash a government subpoena was rarely a successful endeavor. Now, with at least two recent favorable rulings, subpoenaed individuals or entities have a clearer path to challenge investigative subpoenas issued for a potentially “improper purpose” or in “bad faith.” This may prompt more recipients to move to quash investigative subpoenas on similar grounds.
The district court rulings are most likely to affect investigations with a perceived political purpose. If those types of investigations continue, courts will probably see an uptick in recipients challenging government subpoenas issued in connection with those investigations. As a result, the federal government may be required to more clearly articulate the purpose of a given subpoena and the scope of its requests to ensure that the subpoena is facially consistent with that purpose and the government’s investigatory powers.
If the government successfully challenges the district court rulings on appeal, the status quo is unlikely to change significantly. Investigative subpoenas will remain difficult to contest, and courts will continue to enforce them.
The decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers will carry its own unique consequences. If the Supreme Court rules against the pregnancy center, investigative targets will continue to have limited access to federal courts to raise federal constitutional challenges to state-issued subpoenas. Governmental entities likely would be free to issue broad investigative subpoenas that would be largely insulated from federal judicial review (at least for state-issued subpoenas) or that would avoid such federal review for a lengthy period while the challenge wends its way through the state trial and appellate courts.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the pregnancy center, then entities would have expanded access to a federal forum for state subpoenas allegedly issued in violation of a federal constitutional right. At the same time, this could lead to a flood of challenges to state-issued subpoenas in federal courts and potentially overload the federal court system. This could also frustrate the ability of state governments and agencies to timely investigate violations of, and enforce, their own laws. This frustration and inefficiency will be compounded for states with limited resources to devote to such investigations. More stringent requirements for subpoenas would also mean that state agencies would need to comply with the new or modified subpoena parameters or risk jeopardizing their investigations.