Case: In Re: Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-019

1:25-mc-91324 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: July 8, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenges a subpoena requiring Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) to turn over records of minor transgender patients who sought gender-affirming care. BCH sued to quash the subpoena, arguing that it was issued for an improper purpose and was overly burdensome in its intrusion into patient privacy. Shortly after he took office, on January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14187, "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which attacked the practice of pr…

This case challenges a subpoena requiring Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) to turn over records of minor transgender patients who sought gender-affirming care. BCH sued to quash the subpoena, arguing that it was issued for an improper purpose and was overly burdensome in its intrusion into patient privacy.

Shortly after he took office, on January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14187, "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which attacked the practice of prescribing gender-affirming treatments, including cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers, to minor patients. This EO, and subsequent memorandum issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi, authorized the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate healthcare providers for allegedly false statements about the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and hormonal medications and violations of laws against female genital mutilation. 

On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an administrative subpoena to BCH, seeking documentation regarding their gender dysphoria treatment practices, including the personal health information of minor patients. On July 8, BCH brought suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking to quash the subpoena. They argued that it lacked relationship to a legitimate purpose and that it was overly broad and invasive in scope. They also sought leave to proceed under seal in order to protect the sensitive information involved.

The case was assigned to Judge Myong J. Joun. On September 9, 2025, Judge Joun issued an order quashing the subpoena. He found that it was issued for an improper purpose and was primarily intended to interfere with the provision of gender-affirming care, rather than protecting consumer health and safety. However, he did not grant the motion to seal documents related to the case. 2025 WL 2607784. Since the only issues in the case were now resolved, Judge Joun also entered an order to dismiss.

On October 7, the government filed a motion to alter judgment, which was then briefed. In addition, on November 7, the government appealed. 

The district court denied the motion to alter judgment on November 24, holding that the appeal divested the trial court of authority to alter the order on appeal. The district court also noted that the motion to alter judgment was filed four hours late, and was therefore untimely. The government requested that the court exercise discretion and issue a ruling on the motion, but the court found that the government failed to point to any case finding such a motion timely where a subsequent notice of appeal has also been filed, divesting the court of its jurisdiction. Because the Motion was untimely and the notice of appeal has not been tolled, the district court found that jurisdiction was vested with the First Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion.

On January 23, 2026, the defendants appealed the court's denial of the motion to alter judgment to the Ninth Circuit. 

On February 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit consolidated the two ongoing appeals to be considered simultaneously, and modified the parties' briefing schedule, with briefing due on March 13, 2026. 

The appeal (and therefore the case) is ongoing.   

Summary Authors

Taite Puhala (9/24/2025)

Sofia Yoder (3/6/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71301301/parties/in-re-administrative-subpoena-no-25-1431-019/


Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Blais, Brian R. (Massachusetts)

Bonta, Robert

Boynton, Brian M (Massachusetts)

Brown, Anthony G.

Brown, Nicholas W.

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
3

1:25-mc-91324

Boston Children's Hospital's Motion to Quash

July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
33

1:25-mc-91324

Memorandum of Decision

Sept. 9, 2025

Sept. 9, 2025

Order/Opinion

2025 WL 2607784

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71301301/in-re-administrative-subpoena-no-25-1431-019/

Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:38 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 July 8, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Myong J. Joun assigned to case. (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
2 July 8, 2025

MOTION to Seal Case by The Children's Hospital Corporation.(LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
3 July 8, 2025

MOTION to Quash by The Children's Hospital Corporation.(LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

Clearinghouse
4 July 8, 2025

MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Quash filed by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
5 July 8, 2025

DECLARATION of Amanda Masselam Strachan by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

1 Exhibit 1

View on RECAP

RECAP
6 July 8, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua S. Levy on behalf of The Children's Hospital Corporation. (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
7 July 8, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas Hallward-Driemeier on behalf of The Children's Hospital Corporation. (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
8 July 8, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Brian R. Blais on behalf of The Children's Hospital Corporation. (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
9 July 8, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda P. Strachan on behalf of The Children's Hospital Corporation. (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
10 July 8, 2025

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Brian Boynton by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian Boynton) (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
11 July 8, 2025

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Boyd Johnson by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Boyd Johnson)(LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
12 July 8, 2025

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Alan Schoenfeld by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alan Schoenfeld) (LB) (Entered: 07/08/2025)

RECAP
13 July 10, 2025

Filing fee/payment processed: $52, receipt number 100012291 for Miscellaneous filing fee. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
14 July 10, 2025

Filing fee/payment processed: $125, receipt number 100012292 for 10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Brian Boynton. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
15 July 10, 2025

Filing fee/payment processed: $125, receipt number 100012293 for 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Boyd Johnson. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
16 July 10, 2025

Filing fee/payment processed: $125, receipt number 100012294 for 12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Alan Schoenfeld. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
17 July 10, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 10 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Brian M. Boynton. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
18 July 10, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Boyd Johnson. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account. You must put the docket number under ADDITIONAL FILER INFORMATION on your form when registering or it will be rejected.Pro Hac Vice Admission Request Instructions https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-hac-vice.htm.A Notice of Appearance must be entered on the docket by the newly admitted attorney. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
19 July 10, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 12 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Added Alan Schoenfeld. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (EZG) (Entered: 07/10/2025)

RECAP
20 July 23, 2025

Opposition re 2 MOTION to Seal Case filed by United States Department Of Justice. (SP) (Entered: 07/23/2025)

RECAP
21 July 23, 2025

RESPONSE to Motion re 3 MOTION to Quash filed by United States Department Of Justice. (SP) (Entered: 07/23/2025)

RECAP
22 July 24, 2025

ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion 2 Motion to Seal Case, 3 Motion to Quash : A Motion Hearing is set for 8/27/2025 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20 (In person only) before Judge Myong J. Joun. (SKY) (Entered: 07/24/2025)

RECAP
23 July 30, 2025

Motion for Leave to File Reply to the Government's Opposition to its Motion to Seal by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Reply in support of motion to seal)(SKY) (Entered: 07/30/2025)

RECAP
24 July 30, 2025

Motion for Leave to File Reply to the Government's Response to its Motion to Quash by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Reply in support of motion to quash)(SKY) (Entered: 07/30/2025)

RECAP
25 Aug. 5, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered GRANTING 23 Motion for Leave to File Reply to the Government's Opposition to its Motion to Seal. (SKY) (Entered: 08/05/2025)

RECAP
26 Aug. 5, 2025

Reply to 20 Opposition re 2 Motion to Seal Case filed by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (SKY) (Entered: 08/05/2025)

RECAP
27 Aug. 5, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 24 Motion for Leave to File Reply to the Government's Response to its Motion to Quash. (SKY) (Entered: 08/05/2025)

RECAP
28 Aug. 5, 2025

Reply to 21 Response to 3 Motion to Quash filed by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (SKY) (Entered: 08/05/2025)

RECAP
29 Aug. 27, 2025

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Myong J. Joun: Motion Hearing held on 8/27/2025 re 2 Motion to Seal Case, 3 Motion to Quash filed. The Court heard arguments from the parties as to the pending motions and took the matter under advisement. (Court Reporter: Jamie Halpin at jkhhalpin@gmail.com.)(Attorneys present: Levy & Strachan for the petitioner; Runkle & Goldstein for the respondent.) (SKY) (Entered: 08/27/2025)

RECAP
30 Sept. 1, 2025

Transcript of Motion Hearing held on August 27, 2025, before Judge Myong J. Joun. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Jamie Halpin at jkhhalpin@gmail.com. (DRK) (Entered: 09/01/2025)

RECAP
31 Sept. 1, 2025

NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/transcripts.htm (DRK) (Entered: 09/01/2025)

RECAP
32 Sept. 3, 2025

NOTICE by The Children's Hospital Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(SP) (Entered: 09/03/2025)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

RECAP
33 Sept. 9, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION re 2 Motion to Seal Case, 3 Motion to Quash filed by The Children's Hospital Corporation. For the reasons explained in the attached memorandum of decision, Boston Children's Hospital's Motion to Seal [Doc. No 2 ] is DENIED and Motion to Quash [Doc. No. 3 ] is GRANTED. (SKY) (Entered: 09/09/2025)

Clearinghouse
34 Sept. 9, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE. (SKY) (Entered: 09/09/2025)

RECAP
35 Oct. 7, 2025

MOTION to Alter Judgment by United States Department Of Justice.(Runkle, Patrick) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

RECAP
36 Oct. 7, 2025

MEMORANDUM in Support re 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by United States Department Of Justice. (Runkle, Patrick) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

RECAP
37 Oct. 7, 2025

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by United States Department Of Justice. (Runkle, Patrick) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

RECAP
38 Oct. 21, 2025

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by The Children's Hospital Corporation. (Strachan, Amanda) (Entered: 10/21/2025)

RECAP
39 Oct. 21, 2025

MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Proposed Amicus Brief)(Cambier, Adam) (Entered: 10/21/2025)

1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Proposed Amicus Brief

View on RECAP

RECAP
40 Oct. 22, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTIN 39 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (SKY) (Entered: 10/22/2025)

RECAP
41 Oct. 22, 2025

Third Party MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment [Leave to file granted on Oct. 22, 2025] filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Cambier, Adam) (Entered: 10/22/2025)

RECAP
Oct. 22, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

42 Oct. 26, 2025

MOTION for Leave to File Reply by United States Department Of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Reply), # 2 Exhibit B (Ex. A to the Reply))(Runkle, Patrick) (Entered: 10/26/2025)

1 Exhibit A (Proposed Reply)

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B (Ex. A to the Reply)

View on RECAP

RECAP
43 Oct. 27, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 42 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (SKY) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

RECAP
44 Oct. 27, 2025

REPLY to Response to 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment filed by United States Department Of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Runkle, Patrick) (Entered: 10/27/2025)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

RECAP
Oct. 27, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

45 Oct. 29, 2025

Notice of Supplemental Authorities re 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Levy, Joshua) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

RECAP
46 Nov. 7, 2025

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 33 Memorandum & ORDER,, Terminate Motions, by United States Department Of Justice. Fee Status: US Government. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 11/28/2025. (Goldstein, Ross) (Entered: 11/07/2025)

RECAP
47 Nov. 7, 2025

Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 46 Notice of Appeal. (MAP) (Entered: 11/07/2025)

RECAP
48 Nov. 7, 2025

USCA Case Number 25-2092 for 46 Notice of Appeal filed by United States Department Of Justice. (MAP) (Entered: 11/07/2025)

RECAP
Nov. 7, 2025

USCA Case Number

49 Nov. 10, 2025

Notice of Supplemental Authorities re 35 MOTION to Alter Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Runkle, Patrick) (Entered: 11/10/2025)

1 Exhibit A

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit B

View on RECAP

RECAP
50 Nov. 13, 2025

NOTICE by The Children's Hospital Corporation re 46 Notice of Appeal,,, (Strachan, Amanda) (Entered: 11/13/2025)

RECAP
51 Nov. 13, 2025

Response by The Children's Hospital Corporation to 49 Notice of Supplemental Authorities . (Strachan, Amanda) (Entered: 11/13/2025)

RECAP
52 Nov. 24, 2025

Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 35 Motion to Alter Judgment.On September 9, 2025, I entered an order granting Boston Children Hospital’s (“BCH”) Motion to Quash. [Doc. No. 33 ]. On October 7, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Motion to Alter (the “Motion”). [Doc. No. 35 ]. On November 7, 2025, the DOJ filed a Notice of Appeal of my September 9 Order. [Doc. No. 46 ]. That appeal has been assigned USCA Case Number 25-2092. [Doc. No. 48 ]. The parties have completed briefing of the merits of the Motion, however, after DOJ filed its Notice of Appeal, BCH filed a Notice indicating that this court no longer has jurisdiction to decide the Motion. [See Doc. No. 50 ].“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). However, “in order to prevent unnecessary appellate review, the district court was given express authority to entertain a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59, even after a notice of appeal had been filed.” Id. at 59 (emphasis added). As such, Rule 4(A)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “[i]f a party files in the district court” a motion “to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59” and “does so within the time allowed by those rules--the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion.” Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(A)(iv). Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Here, DOJ filed the Motion around 10:30 P.M. on October 7, 2025, or the 28<sup>th</sup> day following the entry of the judgment on September 9. However, an electronic filing made on the last day is timely if filed by midnight in the court’s time zone, “[u]nless a different time is set by a... local rule.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(4). Our district’s local rules state that, “[a]ll electronic transmissions of documents must be completed prior to 6:00 p.m. to be considered timely filed that day.” L.R. 5.4(d). Accordingly, to have timely filed a Motion to Alter in this district, DOJ was required to file its Motion by 6:00 P.M. on October 7, 2025, but did not do so until about 10:30 P.M. [Doc. No. 44 at 4]. Contrary to DOJ’s suggestion that our local rules may not apply to a “miscellaneous proceeding to quash an administrative subpoena,” [Doc. No. 44 at n.2], the local rules clarify that they “apply to all proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.” L.R. 1.2(a). As such, the Motion is untimely. See, e.g., Sneade v. Rojas, 11-cv-40061, 2014 WL 949635, at *2 n.2 (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2014) (“[T]he motion to impound was filed after the 6:00 p.m. deadline and therefore, is deemed filed the next business day, i.e., it was untimely”); Romero v. McCormick & Schmick Rest. Corp., No. 18-cv-10324, 2020 WL 1430530, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2020) (“Under the Local Rules, all electronic filings must be completed prior to 6 p.m. to be considered timely filed that day. L. R. 5.4(d). As reflected on the docket, Plaintiffs electronically filed their motion and memorandum in support at 7:45 p.m. and their statement of material facts at 8:01 p.m. on the date dispositive motions were due. Accordingly, the filing was late.”).“District courts enjoy broad latitude in administering local rules.” Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d 220, 224 (1st Cir. 1994). DOJ asks that I exercise such discretion here to find that the four-hour delay be deemed timely because BCH does not identify any prejudice from the late filing, and other courts in this district have excused similar delays. See, e.g., Soo v. Bone Biologics Corp., No. 19-cv-11520, 2021 WL 1391458, at *4 (D. Mass. Apr. 13, 2021) (excusing four-hour delay in filing an amended complaint and citing cases). However, DOJ has not pointed to any case finding such a motion timely where a subsequent notice of appeal has also been filed, divesting the court of its jurisdiction. “To deviate from a local rule, the district court (1) must have a sound reason for doing so, and (2) must ensure that no party's substantial rights are unfairly jeopardized.” Belanger v. BNY Mellon Asset Mgmt., LLC, No. 15-cv-10198, 2017 WL 1160570, at *6 (D. Mass. Mar. 28, 2017) (cleaned up). DOJ has not provided any “sound reason” for its late filing or for deviating from the local rules. Carpenter v. Rivera, 10-cv-40233, 2014 WL 4928963, at *2 n.2 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2014) (“Accordingly, even if the Court had the power to extend the deadline, I would not find that Plaintiff has established cause for doing so.”). Because the Motion was untimely and the notice of appeal has not been tolled, jurisdiction is now vested with the First Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, I do not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the Motion to Alter. See Malek v. Feigenbaum, 116 F.4th 118, 127–128 (2d Cir. 2024) (finding appeal untimely where Rule 59(e) motion was filed late and did not toll the deadline for appeal). The Motion to Alter, [Doc. No. 35 ], is thus DENIED. (SKY) (Entered: 11/24/2025)

RECAP
Nov. 24, 2025

Order On Motion to Alter Judgment

53 Nov. 25, 2025

Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 46 Notice of Appeal. Documents included: ECF No. 52 (MAP) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

RECAP
54 Jan. 23, 2026

Notice of Appeal

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

Massachusetts

Case Type(s):

Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues

Special Collection(s):

Transgender Healthcare Access Cases

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 8, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Boston Children's Hospital

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

Department of Justice

Case Details

Other Dockets:

District of Massachusetts 1:25-mc-91324

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 25-02092

Special Case Type(s):

Warrant or subpoena application (or protection)

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Gender-affirming care

Recommended Citation