The U.S. Department of Justice is dropping its appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked a subpoena seeking medical records of young people receiving gender-affirming care at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, according to the Public Interest Law Center. The decision leaves a final district court ruling intact and ends a legal battle over sensitive patient data.
End of the Subpoena Battle at UPMC Children’s Hospital
The Department of Justice abandoned its challenge following a March ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District Court of Pennsylvania, according to the Public Interest Law Center. Judge Bissoon reaffirmed her December 2025 denial of the federal subpoena, which had demanded access to medical records of minor patients seeking gender-affirming care at the Lawrenceville hospital.
According to the Public Interest Law Center, which represented the patients and their families alongside the law firm Ballard Spahr, the dismissal means that Judge Bissoon’s ruling is now final. The federal agency had previously offered to accept anonymized records, but that proposal was also rejected during the lower court proceedings.
“Our clients can breathe easier with this litigation behind them,” Ballard Spahr partner Henry Hockeimer said in a statement released Monday.
Broader Legal Precedents and Judicial Pushback
The federal subpoena issued to UPMC just over a year ago mirrored similar investigative efforts launched against healthcare providers in other regions. According to the Public Interest Law Center, federal judges in Philadelphia, Colorado, and Washington state issued similar findings, ruling that the Department of Justice lacks the authority to demand such sensitive health data.
Mimi McKenzie, director of the Public Interest Law Center, stated that the Justice Department during the Trump administration pursued agreements with healthcare providers nationwide to restrict gender-affirming care and promote de-transition clinics. McKenzie noted that these federal efforts came at a cost of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.
“Gender-affirming care is legal in Pennsylvania, and gender-based discrimination is not,” McKenzie said, adding that healthcare providers must follow the law rather than yield to federal pressure.
Patient Privacy and Legal Protections in Pennsylvania
The demand for records raised fears of targeted harassment and the exposure of private medical information to a hostile administration.
“The children we represented, their families, and all minor patients from UPMC’s gender-affirming care clinic can now rest easy that their personal information will not be exposed,” McKenzie said. She added that the administration’s objective was to intimidate regional healthcare providers and deter patients from accessing legal medical treatments.
UPMC did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the dropped appeal. However, prior legal documents filed by the health system indicate that UPMC did not produce any of the patient information originally demanded by the federal subpoena, keeping patient files secure throughout the duration of the court challenge.