Connect with us

Politics

Justice Department drops demand for records naming transgender kids treated at Children’s Hospital L.A.

Published

on

Justice Department drops demand for records naming transgender kids treated at Children’s Hospital L.A.

The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to stop demanding medical records that identify young patients who received gender-affirming care from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, ending a legal standoff with families who sued to block a subpoena that some feared would be used to criminally prosecute the parents of transgender kids.

The agreement, filed in federal court Thursday, allows the hospital to withhold certain records and redact personal information from others who underwent gender-affirming treatments, which Trump administration officials have compared to child mutilation despite support for such care by the nation’s major medical associations.

Several parents of CHLA patients expressed profound relief Friday, while also acknowledging that other threats to their families remain.

Jesse Thorn, the father of two transgender children who had been patients at Children’s Hospital, said hospital officials have ignored his requests for information as to whether they had already shared his kids’ data with the Trump administration, which had been scary. Hearing they had not, and now won’t, provided “two-fold” relief, he said.

Advertisement

“The escalations have been so relentless in the threats to our family, and one of the things that compounded that was the uncertainty about what the federal government knew about our kids’ medical care and what they were going to do about that,” he said.

Less clear is whether the agreement provides any new protections for doctors and other hospital personnel who provided care at the clinic and have also been targeted by the Trump administration.

The agreement follows similar victories for families seeking to block such disclosures by gender-affirming care clinics elsewhere in the country, including a ruling Thursday for the families of transgender kids who received treatment at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

“What’s unique here is this was a class action,” said Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and legal instructor at Harvard, who was not involved in the Los Angeles case. “I can’t undersell what a major win that is to protect the records of all these patients.”

Some litigation remains ongoing, with families fearful appeals to higher courts could end with different results. There is also Republican-backed legislation moving through Congress to restrict gender-affirming care for youths.

Advertisement

Another father of a transgender patient at Children’s Hospital, who requested anonymity because he fears for his child’s safety, said he was grateful for the agreement, but doesn’t see it as the end of the road. He fears the Trump administration could renew its subpoena if it wins on appeal in cases elsewhere.

“There’s some comfort, but it doesn’t close the book on it,” he said.

In a statement to The Times, the Justice Department said it “has not withdrawn its subpoena. Rather, it withdrew three requests for patient records based on the subpoenaed entity’s representation that it did not have custody of any such records.”

“This settlement avoids needless litigation based on that fact and further instructs Children’s Hospital Los Angeles to redact patient information in documents responsive to other subpoena requests,” the DOJ statement said. “As Attorney General Bondi has made clear, we will continue to use every legal and law enforcement tool available to protect innocent children from being mutilated under the guise of ‘care.’”

Children’s Hospital did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

“This is a massive victory for every family that refused to be intimidated into backing down,” Khadijah Silver, director of Gender Justice & Health Equity at Lawyers for Good Government, which helped bring the lawsuit, said in a statement Friday. “The government’s attempt to rifle through children’s medical records was unconstitutional from the start. Today’s settlement affirms what we’ve said all along: these families have done nothing wrong, and their children’s privacy deserves protection.”

Until last summer, the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles was among the largest and oldest pediatric gender clinics in the United States — and one of few providing puberty blockers, hormones and surgical procedures for trans youth on public insurance.

It was also among the first programs to shutter under coordinated, multi-agency pressure exerted from the White House. Ending treatment for transgender children has been a central policy goal for the Trump administration since the president resumed office last year.

“These threats are no longer theoretical,” Children’s Hospital executives wrote to staff in an internal email announcing the closure of the clinic in June. “[They are] threatening our ability to serve the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on CHLA for lifesaving care.”

In July, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced the Justice Department was subpoenaing patient records from gender-affirming care providers, specifically stating that medical professionals were a target of a probe into “organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology.”

Advertisement

California law explicitly protects gender-affirming care, and the state and others led by Democrats have fought back in court, but most providers nationwide have shuttered under the White House push, stirring fear of a de facto ban.

Parents feared the subpoenas could lead to child abuse charges, which the government could then use to strip them of custody of their children. Doctors feared they could be arrested and imprisoned for providing medical care that is broadly backed by the medical establishment and is legal in the states where they performed it.

The Justice Department’s subpoena to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles had initially requested a vast array of personally identifying documents, specially calling for records “sufficient to identify each patient [by name, date of birth, social security number, address, and parent/guardian information] who was prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.”

It also called for records “relating to the clinical indications, diagnoses, or assessments that formed the basis for prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy,” and for records “relating to informed consent, patient intake, and parent or guardian authorization for minor patients” to receive gender-affirming care.

According to the new agreement, the Justice Department withdrew its requests for those specific records — which had yet to be produced by the hospital — on Dec. 8, and told Children’s Hospital to redact the personally identifying information of patients in other records it was still demanding.

Advertisement

Thursday’s agreement formalizes that position, and requires the Justice Department to return or destroy any records that provide personally identifying information moving forward.

“The Government will not use this patient identifying information to support any investigation or prosecution,” the agreement states.

According to the attorneys for the families who sued, the settlement protects the records of their clients but also all of the clinic’s other gender-affirming care patients. “To date, they assured us, no identifiable patient information has been received, and now it cannot be,” said Amy Powell, with Lawyers for Good Government.

Cori Racela, executive director for Western Center on Law & Poverty, called it a “crucial affirmation that healthcare decisions belong in exam rooms, not government subpoenas.”

“Youth, families, and medical providers have constitutional rights to privacy and dignity,” she said in a statement. “No one’s private health records should be turned into political ammunition — especially children.”

Advertisement

The agreement was also welcomed by families of transgender kids beyond Southern California.

“This has been hanging over those families specifically in L.A., of course, but for all families,” said Arne Johnson, a Bay Area father of a transgender child who helps run a group of similar families called Rainbow Families Action. “Every time one of these subpoenas goes out, it’s terrifying.”

Johnson said each victory pushing back against the government’s demands for family medical records feels “like somebody is pointing a gun at your kid and a hero comes along and knocks it out of their hand — it’s literally that visceral of a feeling.”

Johnson said he hopes recent court wins will push hospitals to resist canceling care for transgender children.

“Parents are the ones that are fighting back and they’re the ones that are winning, and the hospitals should take their lead,” he said. “Hospitals should be fighting in the same way the parents are, so that their doctors and other providers can be protected.”

Advertisement

Politics

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

Published

on

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional. 

The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times. 

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.   

“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.

Advertisement

A salesperson holds a high capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle at a store in Orem, Utah, in March 2021.  (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.” 

“We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition,” Deahl said.

Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.” 

GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT

Advertisement

Magazines at Norm’s Gun & Ammo shop in Biddeford, Maine, in April 2013. From left, the first two are high capacity magazines for handguns, an AK-47 magazine, an AR-15 magazine and an SKS magazine.   (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

“The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not,” she added.

The District of Columbia can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or ask the local appeals court to take another look at the ruling with a larger panel of judges, according to the Times. 

High-capacity rifle magazines are removed from a display at Freddie Bear Sports in January 2023 in Tinley Park, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The newspaper also reported that in a previous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the local law surrounding gun magazine sizes. It’s unclear how the two rulings will interact. 

Related Article

Mike Lee unveils national constitutional carry bill to override 'hostile' state gun laws
Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

Published

on

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.

I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.

The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.

Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.

Advertisement

In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.

Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.

Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.

The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.

And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.

Advertisement

Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.

The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”

Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”

Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.

Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?

Advertisement

Me neither.

With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.

This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.

Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)

Advertisement

There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.

Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”

Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.

In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.

More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.

Advertisement

This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.

Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.

When you’re a star, they let you do it.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending