2026-06-05T09:00:07.999Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
- 特朗普政府正在得克萨斯州使用大陪审团传票，要求获取接受性别确认护理的跨性别未成年人的敏感医疗记录。
- 两党联邦法官此前曾驳回类似请求，称此类举动是为了恐吓医院。
- 家长和维权人士担心，政府可能会利用这些记录报复那些接受相关治疗的儿童的家庭。
本文由AI生成摘要，并经CNN编辑审核。
特朗普政府对跨性别未成年人敏感医疗记录的索要正面临法院新一轮审查，该政府正加大力度，通过得克萨斯州的大陪审团迫使性别确认护理服务提供者配合。
去年，两党总统任命的法官在多起案件中叫停了最初使用的所谓行政传票获取信息的做法，他们表示，政府正在对性别确认护理进行毫无根据的钓鱼式调查。
为了绕过这些阻碍，得克萨斯州的检察官——该州近几个月来对性别确认治疗展开了大规模刑事调查——如今正通过大陪审团传票索要部分记录。此举中，他们使用了历来难以挑战的工具来获取观察者认为对当前调查并非必要的信息，这令维权人士和接受此类治疗的未成年人感到担忧。这类治疗在联邦层面并不违法，但在众多共和党领导的州已受到严格限制。
负责此次调查的沃斯堡唯一一名联邦法官是里德·奥康纳，他是乔治·W·布什任命的法官，其保守派立场在 LGBTQ 权利相关案件中尤为凸显。
“这不同寻常，”长期从事刑事辩护工作的乔治城大学法学院教授阿贝·史密斯说道，“我想不出类似的情况。”
史密斯表示，官员们似乎正在利用其检察权“迫使人们配合特朗普政府对跨性别群体的敌意”。
几名儿童的家长正在纽约法院请求阻止医院披露他们的信息，他们在法庭文件中表示，担心自己的记录被披露后会遭到特朗普政府的报复。
“我害怕将我孩子的身份信息交给一个敌视跨性别群体的政府会带来什么后果。我担心他的名字会被列入跨性别者名单，仅仅因为接受了医疗护理就会遭到调查，”一名以莱利·罗伊身份出现的家长在声明中说道。
自第二任总统任期伊始，唐纳德·特朗普总统及其政府就将取缔这类护理列为优先事项。去年夏天，司法部首次向医生和诊所发出20多份行政传票时表示，其调查围绕医疗欺诈和虚假陈述等内容展开。
至少有两家医院公开表示，他们收到了美国北德克萨斯地区检察官办公室发出的大陪审团传票：纽约大学朗格尼医院和斯坦福大学露西尔·帕卡德儿童医院，这两家医院都曾运营为年轻人提供此类护理的项目。纽约大学在5月初宣布收到传票时表示，它是多家收到传票的医院之一。
针对纽约大学的传票要求提供该机构过去六年与性别确认治疗相关的大量详细记录，其中包括计费记录、保险索赔和诊断代码。
传票还要求医院移交更敏感的信息：“足以识别每一位接受变性手术的患者”的文件，以及与这些个体相关的“从初次咨询到最近一次治疗的”所有记录。它还强制医院提供有关家长为未成年子女授权接受此类护理的记录。
今年早些时候，在特朗普政府威胁要撤回该医院的联邦资金后，纽约大学停止为未成年人提供性别确认护理。其他医院也在华盛顿方面的压力下终止了相关项目。
斯坦福大学帕卡德儿童医院也在5月6日收到了类似的大陪审团传票，该医院表示，他们正在就如何遵守传票进行谈判，以“减轻对患者隐私的潜在侵犯”，包括提交检察官要求的匿名记录版本。
未来几天将举行三场主要的法庭听证会。
加利福尼亚州圣何塞的一名联邦法官将于周五举行紧急听证会，考虑是否应禁止斯坦福医院配合针对上月提起诉讼的六名患者的传票要求。
周二在马里兰州，一名此前曾驳回政府通过行政传票从华盛顿特区一家医院获取记录的法官，将考虑是否发布类似的全国性裁决。
周三，曼哈顿的一名法官将权衡纽约市医院接受性别确认护理的人士提出的请求，要求发布一项广泛裁决，禁止美国各地的医院配合索要此类敏感记录的大陪审团传票。
通过法庭文件和诉讼程序，司法部表示，除其他事项外，他们正在调查医疗机构是否非法推动跨性别未成年人使用跨性别激素疗法和延迟青春期的标签外用药。检察官还在调查提供此类治疗时是否存在欺诈性计费行为。
上个月在罗德岛州对一名法官讲话时，司法部律师布兰特利·迈尔斯表示，如果没有识别个体患者及其家长的记录，调查人员“无法完全确定违规范围、识别错误贴标或欺诈性计费的模式，或评估此类行为是否带有欺诈或误导意图”。
CNN已联系司法部征求置评。
大陪审团传票
大陪审团程序严格保密，受到检察官传票的个人或实体——检察官无需预先批准即可发出传票——通常不会透露自己收到了传票，尽管也没有明确禁止他们披露此类信息。
收到大陪审团传票的目标可以尝试撤销传票，但法院往往会尊重检察官为收集刑事起诉证据所做的努力。
然而，法律专家表示，试图阻止配合大陪审团传票的案件可能会得到去年一系列驳回类似信息行政传票的法院裁决的支持。
“我认为本届政府面临的挑战是，（善意的）推定已经因一些所谓调查问题的公开评论而受到了一定削弱，这些评论破坏了这种合法性推定，”长期从事白领辩护业务、包括处理传票诉讼的律师乔伊·博伊德·朗内克说道。
在上周针对这家位于帕洛阿尔托的医院提起的诉讼中，六名匿名人士表示，虽然他们不想阻碍得克萨斯州正在进行的调查工作，但索要包含患者姓名和治疗细节的敏感信息太过离谱。
“司法部一再以不同的法律标签索要同一类别的患者身份医疗记录，而法院一再认定，这些记录与司法部声称的（《食品、药品和化妆品法》）或欺诈理论没有充分关联，”代表患者的律师在法庭文件中写道，“政府不能仅仅通过将相同的患者数据要求重新包装为大陪审团程序来弥补这种不匹配。”
斯坦福帕卡德儿童医院的律师在本周的法庭文件中表示，该医院去年夏天最初收到了一份行政传票，但在上个月检察官突然撤回该传票并发出大陪审团传票时，尚未配合调查。
医院表示，司法部一直愿意接受经过详细编辑的记录，但如果提出质疑的患者胜诉则不然。检察官告诉医院，如果在加州法官那里胜诉，他们将要求奥康纳迫使医院提交非匿名版本的记录。
“禁令……可能会给原告带来最糟糕的情况，”医院律师写道。
在过去一年的近10起案件中，全国各地的联邦法官都驳回了索要此类记录的行政传票。其中一些裁决目前正在上诉中。
法官们对调查人员获取信息的必要性以及获取非匿名记录的意愿提出了质疑，即便患者和家长本人似乎并未受到刑事调查，非匿名记录也会导致他们的姓名和私密医疗记录被披露。
去年9月，前总统乔·拜登任命的约翰·春法官驳回了针对西雅图儿童医院的行政传票，他指出，司法部关于为何需要健康记录的证据“薄弱不堪”，司法部当时告诉他这是对联邦医疗犯罪的调查。他得出结论，似乎是在“作为通过施压运动终止未成年人性别相关护理的努力的一部分”来索要这些信息。
马萨诸塞州的明恩·J·容法官去年批评政府试图进行“钓鱼式调查”，因为政府没有提供“丝毫证据”表明波士顿儿童医院违反了任何联邦法律。
“显而易见，发出传票的真正目的是……骚扰和恐吓波士顿儿童医院，使其停止提供此类护理，并劝阻患者寻求此类护理，”法官写道。
上个月情况变得尤其糟糕，一名特朗普任命的罗德岛地区法官指责司法部恶意行事，当时司法部正试图维持对罗德岛医院发出的行政传票。
该医院一直在与政府谈判如何回应其要求，此时该州儿童权益倡导者要求玛丽·麦克罗伊法官介入撤销传票。几天前，官员们要求得克萨斯州沃斯堡的一名联邦法官下令医院配合传票，尽管当时医院正与政府进行谈判。
在5月12日的紧张听证会上，法官痛斥司法部律师在纠纷中的“误导性”操作，以及无法回答有关司法部为何最近将调查转移到沃斯堡的关键问题。她指出，鉴于那里唯一的联邦法官立场极为保守，沃斯堡是一个“有利的诉讼地”。
麦克罗伊强调了她对政府的不信任，她敦促任何正在与调查人员就传票事宜进行谈判的医院或供应商提出撤销传票的请求。
根据听证会记录，她表示政府“应该准备好应对数千份撤销动议——可能数万份，因为我不知道在了解本案的（处理）轨迹后，任何一方如何能依赖与司法部的对话，说他们正在配合调查”。
麦克罗伊最终撤销了该行政传票，但波士顿联邦上诉法院后来表示，在上诉期间，医院需要向奥康纳提交匿名版本的记录。
笼罩在这一切之上的一个问题是，为何检察官将大部分调查工作转移到沃斯堡，而不是在相关医院所在的司法管辖区进行。
麦克罗伊在试图阻止针对罗德岛医院的传票时聚焦于这一问题，她在裁决中写道，司法部认为他的法院“对其政治立场友好”。
就司法部律师而言，他们承认，虽然调查“确实在全国范围内展开”，但政府“并非简单决定将调查”放在沃斯堡，以便在那里寻求传票配合的命令。
“这里有大量的调查步骤，”他们在法庭文件中写道，表示“调查的几名对象和潜在目标”位于北德克萨斯州。但该部门也在法庭文件中强调，其调查“不是——也从来不是——针对寻求性别确认护理的患者或家长”。
Trump administration escalates legal push for medical records of trans minors
2026-06-05T09:00:07.999Z / CNN
- The Trump administration is using grand jury subpoenas in Texas to demand sensitive medical records of transgender minors receiving gender-affirming care.
- Federal judges from both parties had previously blocked similar requests, calling them efforts to intimidate hospitals.
- Parents and advocates fear the administration could use the records to retaliate against families whose children received the treatments.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
The Trump administration’s demands for sensitive medical records of transgender minors are facing fresh scrutiny in court as it ramps up its efforts by using a grand jury in Texas to force providers of gender-affirming care to comply.
The initial use of so-called administrative subpoenas to get the information was shut down in case after case over the last year by jurists appointed by presidents from both parties who said the administration is conducting a baseless fishing expedition into gender-affirming care.
In an apparent bid to overcome those roadblocks, prosecutors in Texas, where a sprawling criminal investigation into gender-affirming treatments has sprung up in recent months, are now seeking some of the records through grand jury subpoenas. In doing so, they’re using a tool that’s historically difficult to challenge to get hold of information that observers say is not necessary for the kind of probe being carried out – alarming advocates and minors who receive the treatments, which is not illegal on the federal level but has been heavily restricted in a slew of GOP-led states.
The only federal judge in Fort Worth, where the probe is being carried out, is Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee whose conservative bona fides have been especially on display in cases over LGBTQ rights.
“This is unusual,” said Abbe Smith, a longtime criminal defense attorney and a professor at Georgetown Law. “I can’t think of an analogous situation.”
Smith said that officials appeared to be using their prosecutorial powers to “coerce people into complying with the Trump administration’s hostility toward trans people.”
Parents of several children who are asking a New York court to block their information from being turned from a hospital said in court papers they’re worried that having their records disclosed could expose them to retaliation by the Trump administration.
“I am afraid about what may result from releasing my child’s identity to an administration that is hostile to the transgender community. I fear that his name may go on a list of transgender people and that he will be investigated simply for receiving medical care,” one parent – identified as Riley Roe – said in their declaration.
President Donald Trump and his administration have made stamping out such care a priority since the earliest days of his second term. When the Justice Department first began issuing more than 20 administrative subpoenas to doctors and clinics last summer, it said its probes were centered around health care fraud and false statements, among other things.
At least two hospitals have said publicly that they’ve received a grand jury subpoena from the US Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas: NYU Langone Hospitals and Stanford University’s Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, both of which have operated programs to provide such care to young people. In announcing its subpoena in early May, NYU said it was among several that had received one.
The subpoena against NYU sought a slew of detailed records from the past six years related to the gender-affirming treatments provided by the institution. Among them are billing records, insurance claims and diagnostic codes.
It asked the hospital to turn over more sensitive information: documents “sufficient to identify every patient who underwent sex-rejecting procedures” and all the records related to those individuals “from initial consultation to the most recent treatment provided.” It also compelled the hospital to produce records pertaining to authorizations from parents for their minor children to receive such care.
NYU stopped providing gender-affirming care for minors earlier this year after the Trump administration threatened to pull federal funding from the hospital. Other hospitals have also ended their programs in the face of pressure from Washington.
Stanford’s LPCH was also hit with a similar grand jury subpoena on May 6, and the hospital has said that it’s in negotiations over how to comply in a way that would “mitigate potential intrusions on patient privacy,” including by turning over anonymized versions of the records sought by prosecutors.
There are now three major court hearings set over the next few days.
A federal judge in San Jose, California, will hold an emergency hearing on Friday to consider whether he should bar Stanford’s hospital from complying with the subpoena with respect to six patients who brought suit last month.
In Maryland on Tuesday, a judge who has previously rejected the government’s efforts to obtain records from a hospital in Washington, DC, through an administrative subpoena will consider whether to issue a similar nationwide ruling.
And Wednesday, a Manhattan judge will weigh a request from people who received gender-affirming care at hospitals in New York City for a broad ruling that would prevent hospitals around the US from complying with grand jury subpoenas for such sensitive records.
Through court filings and proceedings, the Justice Department has said that, among other things, it’s looking at whether providers have unlawfully pushed off-label use of drugs for cross-sex hormone therapy and to delay puberty in trans minors. Prosecutors are also probing whether possible fraudulent billing practices have occurred where the treatments have been provided.
Speaking to a judge in Rhode Island last month, DOJ attorney Brantley Mayers said that without having records identifying individual patients and their parents, investigators “cannot fully determine the scope of violation, identity patterns of misbranding or fraudulent billing, or assess whether the conduct was undertaken with intent to defraud or mislead.”
CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
Grand jury subpoenas
Grand jury proceedings are shrouded in secrecy and individuals or entities subjected to subpoenas from prosecutors – who can send them without needing to get pre-approval – do not typically reveal that they’ve been hit with one, though they’re not explicitly barred from making such a disclosure, either.
The target of a grand jury subpoena can attempt to quash it, but courts tend to defer to prosecutors working to gather evidence to bring a criminal case.
However, legal experts said the cases seeking to block compliance with the grand jury subpoenas are likely bolstered by the series of court rulings over the last year swatting down administrative subpoenas for similar information.
“I think this challenge for the current administration is that that presumption (of good faith) has been a little bit eroded by the public comments that have been made about some of the issues that are supposedly under investigation that undercut that presumption of legitimacy,” said Joy Boyd Longnecker, a longtime white collar defense attorney whose practice includes litigating subpoenas.
In their lawsuit brought against the Palo Alto-based hospital last week, the six anonymous individuals said that while they don’t want to impede the work of the ongoing investigation in Texas, requesting sensitive information containing patient names and details about their treatments is a step too far.
“DOJ has repeatedly sought the same category of patient-identifying medical records under shifting legal labels, and courts have repeatedly found that those records bear no adequate connection to DOJ’s asserted (Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) or fraud theories,” lawyers representing the patients wrote in court papers. “The government cannot cure that mismatch simply by repackaging the same patient-data demands as grand jury process.”
Lawyers for Stanford’s LPCH said in court filings this week it was initially hit with an administrative subpoena last summer, but that it hadn’t yet complied when prosecutors abruptly withdrew it last month and issued the grand jury subpoena.
The hospital said that DOJ has been open to accepting records with detailed redactions, but not if the patients challenging the effort are successful in their case. Securing a win from the California judge, prosecutors told the hospital, would prompt them to ask O’Connor to force the hospital to turn over non-anonymized versions of the records.
“An injunction would … potentially result in the worst-case scenario for the plaintiffs,” the hospital’s lawyers wrote.
Across nearly 10 cases over the last year, federal judges around the country blocked administrative subpoenas for the records. Some of those rulings are now on appeal.
Judges took issue with both the investigators’ need for the information and its desire to get non-anonymized versions of the records, which would have prevented the names of patients and their parents, along with their intimate medical records, from being disclosed even though they themselves don’t appear to be under criminal investigation.
When Judge John Chun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, blocked an administrative subpoena to Seattle Children’s Hospital in September, he pointed to “threadbare” evidence from the Justice Department for why it needed the health records for what it told him was a probe into a federal healthcare offense. It seemed, he concluded, that the information was being sought “as part of an effort to end gender-related care for minors” through a pressure campaign.
Judge Myong J. Joun in Massachusetts chastised the administration last year for going on an attempted “fishing expedition” when it had not offered “an iota of suspicion” that Boston Children’s Hospital had broken any federal laws.
“It is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to … harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care,” the judge wrote.
The situation turned especially ugly last month after a Trump-appointed district judge in Rhode Island accused the Justice Department of acting in bad faith as it sought to keep alive an administrative subpoena issued to Rhode Island Hospital.
The hospital had been in negotiations with the government over how to respond to its demands when the state’s child advocate asked Judge Mary McElroy to step in to quash the subpoena. A few days earlier, officials asked a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, to order the hospital to comply with the subpoena even as it was in the middle of talks with the hospital.
At a tense hearing on May 12, the judge ripped into DOJ lawyers for its “misleading” maneuvering in the dispute, as well as its inability to answer key questions about why the department had recently shifted its investigation to Fort Worth, which she described as a “favorable forum” given the fact that the only federal judge there is fiercely conservative.
Underscoring her mistrust with the government, McElroy urged any other hospital or provider in active talks with investigators over how to proceed with a subpoena to file requests to quash the subpoena.
The government, she said, according to a transcript of the proceeding, “should be prepared to field thousands of motions to quash – tens of thousands, maybe, because I don’t know how any party can rely on a conversation with the Department of Justice that they’re working on compliance given the (track) of this case.”
McElroy ultimately voided the administrative subpoena, but a federal appeals court in Boston later said the hospital needed to hand over anonymized versions of the records to O’Connor while appeals play out.
Hovering over all of this are questions about why prosecutors have shifted much of their work to Fort Worth instead of having it conducted in the judicial districts where the hospitals in question are located.
McElroy zeroed in on that issue when she attempted to block the subpoena for the Rhode Island hospital, writing in her decision that DOJ saw his court as being “friendly to its political positions.”
For their part, DOJ lawyers have conceded that while the investigation “is indeed nationwide in scope, the government did not simply decide that it would park the investigation” in Fort Worth so that it could seek orders there for compliance with the subpoenas.
“There are substantial investigative steps happening here,” they wrote in court papers, saying that “several subjects and potential targets of the investigation” are in northern Texas. But the department also stressed in court filings that its probe “is not – and has never been – an investigation of patients or parents” seeking gender-affirming care.