A federal judge has referred attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for potential disciplinary action related to statements they made while opposing a motion to quash a subpoena. The subpoena was directed at a Rhode Island hospital, seeking records concerning gender-affirming care provided to transgender youth.
Background of the Case
U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, made the referral decision after nullifying the subpoena last month. McElroy cited misrepresentation and withholding of information by DOJ lawyers as reasons for the ruling. These actions were aimed at ensuring that Rhode Island Hospital complied with the subpoena. The decision followed several other federal courts that agreed to limit or void similar expansive civil subpoenas issued to over 20 doctors and hospitals in the previous summer.
McElroy noted in her decision that the DOJ displayed an “immense prosecutorial authority and discretion” but questioned its trustworthiness in fair enforcement of its power. The DOJ Civil Division later dismissed McElroy’s allegations, asserting that their thorough review deemed them “without merit.”
Details of McElroy’s May Ruling
In her May 14 ruling, McElroy heavily criticized the DOJ’s actions, stating that the department had proved unworthy of judicial trust at every point in the case. She highlighted that DOJ lawyers misrepresented and withheld information from her court and a federal court in the Northern District of Texas. This was, according to McElroy, an attempt to circumvent court oversight of investigative tactics previously rejected by other courts and to favor a friendlier jurisdiction.
McElroy further criticized a DOJ lawyer’s claim that Rhode Island Hospital had ceased communication with the department. She noted that this assertion was “clearly misleading,” as hospital representatives had indeed responded to a February email. “This reckless disregard for the duty of candor owed to a federal court is appalling,” McElroy wrote.
The subpoenas demanded sensitive personal information, including birth dates, Social Security numbers, and addresses of patients who received transgender care over five years. It also sought documents detailing adverse side effects in minors who received gender-related care and other related documents.
Investigation and DOJ’s Arguments
The DOJ argued that the requested information was essential for investigating possible fraud or unlawful off-label medication promotion. During a recent hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brantley Mayers expressed concerns about financial incentives provided to doctors for prescribing puberty blockers. Despite the legality of off-label prescribing, the DOJ sought the subpoenas to interview patients and families about possible misbranding of FDA-approved drugs.
McElroy dismissed this reasoning, asserting that the administration characterized gender-affirming care for minors as abuse and celebrated program curtailments resulting from the subpoena campaign.
DOJ’s Response to the Allegations
The DOJ has announced an appeal of McElroy’s order, contending that the allegations made by McElroy against their lawyers are serious and rare. The department maintains that their exhaustive review found the accusations to be baseless. Speaking without reservation, the DOJ stands by its attorneys and continues to appeal what it considers an erroneous order from the District Court.
This article contains contributions from The Associated Press.