Case Update – July 2, 2026
On July 2, 2026 the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction tat prevents the U.S. Department of Justice from requesting, receiving, or otherwise obtaining any records from Stanford’s Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital. The Court also granted plaintiffs’ request to certify a class of individuals who received the relevant care at Packard Children’s Hospital so that the order covers anyone who received care there. The Court did not grant the request to certify a class that would cover all hospitals in California so this only applies to the Packard Children’s Hospital. The court’s order is here.
Case Update – June 23, 2026
A hearing on plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Provisional Class Certification is set for 2 pm Pacific Time on Wednesday, June 24. Relevant court documents linked below.
Defendants Response to Motion for TRO & OSC, 06-17-26
Plaintiffs Motion for Provisional Class Certification, 06-08-26
Plaintiff Ex Parte Motion for TRO & OSC_ MPA ISO, 06-08-26
Case Update – June 16, 2026
On June 16, 2026, twenty states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the disclosure of identifying and sensitive personal healthcare information, including regarding medically necessary healthcare to transgender minors, in response to a federal grand jury subpoena directed at Stanford Children’s Hospital. The American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) separately filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion.
The states’ brief argued that enforcement of the subpoena “would threaten the health and welfare of the people of California and other amici States, impede core economic activities of amici States, and encroach on amici States’ traditional role as the regulators of medicine.” The AAP’s brief explained that appropriate gender-affirming care for adolescents and medication in furtherance of that care is “both evidence-based and medically necessary” and that such broad subpoenas will “threaten patient privacy” and “chill access to care.”
The proposed amicus briefs can be found here and here.
Case Update – June 10, 2026
A hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ initial request for a Temporary Restraining Order on Friday, June 5. At the hearing the Court primarily focused on whether the Hospital was the proper defendant or the Department of Justice, which had issued the subpoena, and whether the Court could grant relief to cover all individuals impacted by the subpoena because the case was not brought as a class action. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request as to the Hospital on Saturday June 6, and on Monday June 7, Plaintiff’s promptly amended their complaint to add the Department of Justice, additional plaintiffs, and to bring the case on behalf of a class of individuals impacted. The Court quickly issued an order enjoining the Department of Justice from moving to compel production of the records pending a status conference the following day. In that status conference on June 9 the parties agreed that the order will remain in place—and the government will not move to compel production of the documents, nor will the Hospital produce them—until the briefing on all motions is completed on June 25, 2026.
Case Update – June 2, 2026
A hearing on plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is set for 10 am Pacific Time on Friday June 5. Watch the hearing remotely by going to the Judge’s website – https://cand.uscourts.gov/
Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for TRO & OSC_ MPA ISO, 05-27-26
Plaintiffs Ex Parte Notice of Motion for TRO, 05-27-26
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2026
Contacts:
Lauren Gray, lgray@nclrights.org (917-985-0709)
Amanda Johnston, ajohnston@gladlaw.org (617-417-7769)
California Families Sue to Stop Trump Administration from Seizing Children’s Private Medical Records Through Out-of-State Grand Jury
Parents and patients ask federal court in California to block sweeping Justice Department subpoena that ignores constitutional protections for confidential medical information
SAN JOSE, CA — Six California families today asked a federal court to stop the Trump administration’s Department of Justice from using a grand jury subpoena issued more than 1,500 miles away to seize their children’s confidential medical records from Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, raises serious questions about the limits of federal investigative power and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. The complaint is here.
The families—whose children are transgender youth who received care at Stanford ranging from counseling to prescribed medication—were given no notice that federal prosecutors in Texas had demanded their identities, diagnoses, treatment histories, and even their parents’ signed consent forms. They learned about the subpoena only through public reports involving other hospitals that received nearly identical demands.
“Parents trust their children’s doctors with the most sensitive information a family has,” said Shannon Minter, National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director. “When the federal government can reach across the country, into a hospital that has no connection to the court that issued the subpoena, and pull a child’s entire medical file out of the filing cabinet without so much as a phone call to the parents, every family in America should be concerned. This is not how a limited government is supposed to work.”
The lawsuit comes after a year of unsuccessful Justice Department efforts to obtain the same categories of medical records through administrative subpoenas. At least eight federal district court judges have quashed those earlier subpoenas, with one court describing the government’s stated justification as a “smokescreen” and another concluding that DOJ “issued the subpoena first and searched for a justification second.” Rather than accept those rulings, the Department of Justice repackaged the same demands as grand jury subpoenas and obtained them in the Northern District of Texas, a venue with no apparent connection to Stanford, to the families whose records are being sought, or to the medical care at issue. The subpoenas were issued in secret, on May 7, 2026, with a return date of June 10. Affected families received no notice and no opportunity to be heard.
“The government is demanding that a hospital hand over records identifying parents who made a private medical decision for their child, in consultation with their doctors,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights. “Whatever one thinks about the underlying medical question, the principle that the federal government cannot compile targeted lists of families to advance political ends should be beyond dispute.”
The complaint argues that compelled disclosure of these records would violate the constitutional right to informational privacy, which courts have repeatedly held protects patients’ identities and medical histories from compelled disclosure to the government absent a strong showing of need, as well as the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from singling out a category of patients for differential treatment without justification. The complaint also alleges a Fourth Amendment violation in connection with the underlying search of the records.
According to publicly available copies of subpoenas served on other hospitals, the demands include documents sufficient to identify each patient who received the targeted care. This includes, for each patient, all records relating to clinical assessments, diagnoses, and treatment “from initial consultation to the most recent treatment provided”; and all informed consent documents, intake forms, and parent or guardian authorizations. The subpoenas contain no use limitations, no restrictions on which government employees may access the files, and no safeguards against the information being shared with state prosecutors or used in unrelated proceedings.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order by 5:00 p.m. PT on June 9, 2026, one day before Stanford’s response is due, to preserve the status quo while the court considers the constitutional questions. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only; it does not seek money damages. The plaintiffs are identified by pseudonyms in the complaint to protect their privacy. They are represented by the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, GLAD Law, and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.
The case is Z.A., et al. v. Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. A copy of the complaint, motion, and supporting documents are available at www.gladlaw.org/cases/za-v-lucile-salter-packard-childrens-hospital
Selected Media
California families sue over Texas-based demand for trans children’s health data, San Francisco Chronicle, May 28, 2026
Trans Minors Sue to Stop Justice Department Access to Medical Records, New York Times, June 2, 2026
###
The National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. Since its founding in 1977, NCLR has maintained a longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and the LGBTQ community’s most vulnerable. www.nclrights.org
GLAD Law (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders) has been a leading force in LGBTQ+ rights for nearly 50 years. With deep roots in New England and impact nationwide, we use strategic litigation, legislation, and public education to fight discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and HIV status. GLAD Law’s bold strategy and precedent-setting victories have reshaped the legal landscape, advancing equality for all people facing discrimination and social barriers. www.gladlaw.org