⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit considers a federal demand for Rhode Island Hospital's records about treatment of young people with gender dysphoria. The Justice Department says it is investigating possible drug misbranding and health-care fraud involving puberty blockers and hormone treatments. Its subpoena sought patient records, billing information, personnel files, and communications with drug makers. The hospital and the government discussed production for months. Then the government asked a federal judge in Texas to enforce the demand. The judge entered an enforcement order that same evening, before the hospital had an opportunity to respond in court. The hospital appealed, arguing that it should have been heard before a binding judgment was entered. Later filings and requests to pause enforcement became part of the dispute. A separate Rhode Island proceeding added another complication: a judge there quashed the same subpoena and restricted the government's receipt of patient information. That order is not the ruling directly under review in this Fifth Circuit argument. Listen for two distinct questions. First, can later opportunities to submit evidence cure the lack of a chance to respond before judgment? Second, is the existing record enough to decide objections to the subpoena's purpose, breadth and burden? This is a fight over investigative powers, medical records and fair procedure, not a determination that the hospital broke the law.

United States v. Rhode Island Hospital (No. 26-10431) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.