Last
week,
the
ballroom
plaintiffs
suggested
that
a
federal
judge
should
consider
Rule
11
sanctions
for
the
top
three
lawyers
at
the
Trump
Justice
Department.
After
publicly
demanding
that
the
National
Trust
for
Historic
Preservation
withdraw
its
opposition
to
Trump’s
Mar-a-Lago
replica,
the
DOJ
submitted
a
filing
so
packed
with
falsehoods
that
the
Trust’s
attorney
Greg
Craig
(himself
a
former
White
House
Counsel)
suggested
that
some
sort
of
consequence
might
be
in
order.
This
is
not
a
one-off.
More
than
a
year
ago,
Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General
Drew
Ensign
lied
to
Chief
Judge
James
Boasberg’s
face
about
the
flights
taking
off
from
Texas
to
CECOT
in
El
Salvador.
And
since
Acting
AG
Todd
Blanche
took
over
for
the
ousted
Pam
Bondi,
the
pace
of
these
false
representations
seems
to
be
picking
up.
In
the
past
two
weeks
alone,
Blanche
got
caught
telling
lies
about
the
Southern
Poverty
Law
Center’s
previous
cooperation
with
law
enforcement
in
the
“fraud”
case
against
the
storied
civil
rights
organization;
and
a
federal
judge
in
Rhode
Island
referred
the
chief
of
the
Civil
Division
at
the
US
Attorney’s
Office,
Roger
Bolan,
for
a
misconduct
investigation
due
to
lack
of
candor
to
the
court.
And
now
the
Civil
Division
at
Main
Justice
seems
to
be
lying
about
both
the
facts
and
the
law
in
an
effort
to
invade
the
medical
privacy
of
thousands
of
trans
kids.
In
so
doing,
they’ve
kicked
off
a
cross-country
battle
that’s
already
raging
in
three
separate
courts.
When
every
other
court
says
no,
try
Texas
The
story
begins
in
July
of
2025,
when
the
Enforcement
and
Affirmative
Litigation
Branch
(EALB,
formerly
the
Consumer
Protection
Branch)
served
administrative
subpoenas
on
more
than
twenty
hospitals
and
clinics
around
the
country,
demanding
patient
records
for
every
minor
who
had
been
prescribed
puberty
blockers
or
hormone
therapy
for
gender
affirming
care.
The
subpoenas
purported
to
be
investigating
mislabeled
drugs
in
violation
of
the
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(FDCA).
Court
after
court
quashed
them,
characterizing
the
subpoenas
as
overbroad,
legally
deficient,
or
issued
in
bad
faith
to
accomplish
a
policy
goal
rather
than
to
investigate
actual
crimes.
Counsel
for
Rhode
Island
Hospital
(RIH),
affiliated
with
Brown
University
Health,
immediately
began
entering
negotiations
with
the
DOJ
to
narrow
the
scope
of
the
subpoena.
Per
the
hospital’s
motions,
lawyers
from
EALB
said
they
didn’t
believe
RIH
had
engaged
in
any
criminal
wrongdoing
and
agreed
that
the
August
7
subpoena
deadline
was
flexible.
RIH
sent
proposed
search
terms
on
February
4,
2026
and
received
no
response
until
April
28,
when
a
DOJ
attorney
emailed
to
set
up
a
“conference
this
week
regarding
status.”
Instead
the
DOJ
filed
a
petition
to
enforce
the
subpoena
in
Fort
Worth,
Texas.
Texas
is
clearly
an
inappropriate
venue
for
an
enforcement
action
against
a
hospital
1,700
miles
away.
But
the
District
Court
in
Rhode
Island
would
likely
have
quashed
the
subpoena,
as
would
the
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
where
EALB
is
located
and
where
RIH
had
been
instructed
to
send
its
patient
records.
And
so
the
DOJ
got
creative.
Stating
in
conclusory
fashion
that
the
investigation
was
being
carried
out
in
the
Northern
District
of
Texas,
it
filed
a
motion
in
Fort
Worth,
where
it
was
virtually
guaranteed
to
draw
either
Judge
Reed
O’Connor
or
Judge
Mark
Pittman
—
rabid
conservatives
whose
dockets
are
a
magnet
for
right-wing
litigants
looking
to
tee
up
a
favorable
ruling
for
the
Fifth
Circuit.
That
same
day,
without
waiting
for
any
response
from
RIH,
Judge
O’Connor
signed
DOJ’s
proposed
order
verbatim,
giving
the
hospital
14
days
to
hand
over
years
of
sensitive
patient
records
or
face
contempt.
Three
court
circus
Judge
O’Connor’s
order
set
off
a
multi-state
litigation
brushfire.
The
Child
Advocate
for
the
State
of
Rhode
Island,
legally
designated
to
protect
the
interest
of
children
in
foster
care,
sued
in
the
District
of
Rhode
Island
to
block
the
subpoena.
RIH
has
moved
to
intervene
in
that
case.
And
in
Texas,
RIH
appealed
the
order
to
the
Fifth
Circuit
on
due
process
grounds
and
requested
an
emergency
stay,
while
petitioning
Judge
O’Connor
to
stay
his
March
14
deadline
during
the
pendency
of
the
appeal.
The
DOJ
has
now
represented
to
multiple
courts
that
this
investigation
is
really
being
conducted
in
Texas.
Sure
the
subpoena
was
issued
from
DC
and
demanded
production
to
EALB’s
office
in
DC;
every
DOJ
attorney
who
negotiated
with
RIH
works
in
DC;
and
RIH
has
no
connection
to
Texas.
But
in
an
ex
parte
declaration
filed
under
seal
—
i.e.
not
shared
with
RIH
—
the
government
it
pinky
swears
that
“there
is
substantial
operational
and
decision-making
control
of
the
investigation
being
exercised
at
the
U.S.
Attorney’s
Office
in
the
Northern
District
of
Texas,
along
with
several
subjects
and
potential
targets
of
the
investigation
located
here.”
As
the
Child
Advocate
points
out,
the
relevant
question
isn’t
where
this
investigation
is
now,
but
where
it
was
in
July
when
the
subpoenas
issued.
But
more
to
the
point,
it
takes
chutzpah
to
self-righteously
demand
that
the
court
accord
due
deference
in
a
case
where
the
DOJ
has
behaved
in
such
outrageous
bad
faith.
EALB,
which
is
part
of
the
Justice
Department,
assured
RIH
that
the
August
deadline
was
flexible,
and
then
sued
while
the
hospital
was
earnestly
negotiating
compliance.
In
its
motion
to
enforce,
the
government
omitted
to
mention
those
negotiations,
implying
that
the
hospital
simply
blew
off
the
subpoena.
The
DOJ
characterized
the
motion
as
“fulsome”
since
it
fulfilled
its
duty
of
candor
by
informing
the
court
in
a
footnote
that
“a
handful
of
mistaken
district
judges”
had
rejected
identical
subpoenas.
It
blatantly
forum-shopped
the
case
to
a
friendly
conservative
judge,
and
then,
when
called
out,
indignantly
insisted
that
the
investigation
had
always
been
located
in
Texas.
The
DOJ
even
misstates
the
law
it
relies
on
to
invade
these
children’s
medical
privacy
and
menace
their
healthcare
providers.
EALB’s
theory
is
that
drug
manufacturers
may
be
violating
the
FDCA
by
encouraging
doctors
to
prescribe
hormones
for
off-label
uses.
But
as
the
Child
Advocate
notes
in
her
motion
to
quash,
off-label
prescribing
is
perfectly
legal.
The
FDCA
explicitly
states
that
“[n]othing
in
this
chapter
shall
be
construed
to
limit
or
interfere
with
the
authority
of
a
health
care
practitioner
to
prescribe
or
administer
any
legally
marketed
device
to
a
patient
for
any
condition
or
disease
within
a
legitimate
health
care
practitioner-patient
relationship.”
That’s
why
all
those
doctors
who
prescribed
ivermectin
to
treat
coronavirus
aren’t
in
jail
now!
In
2019,
Trump’s
own
Office
of
Legal
Counsel
defended
the
off-label
use
of
barbiturates
to
execute
prisoners,
writing
that,
“[W]hile
the
FDCA
bars
a
manufacturer
or
distributor
from
selling
any
drug
or
device
for
an
unapproved
use,
physicians
may,
with
limited
exceptions,
prescribe
and
administer
FDA-approved
drugs
and
devices
for
unapproved
uses.”
And
while
the
government
states
that
it
“has
reason
to
suspect
that
RI
Hospital
employees
might
have
engaged
in
false
billing
concerning
patients
suffering
from
gender
dysphoria,”
it
took
the
exact
opposite
position
last
year
when
it
tried
to
protect
the
big
pharma
company
Janssen
from
a
$1.6
billion
civil
verdict
for
encouraging
off-label
use
of
HIV
drugs.
“Off-label
prescription
of
a
drug
can
sometimes
be
both
medically
accepted
and
reasonable
and
necessary
for
a
given
patient”
it
told
the
Third
Circuit,
adding
that
the
FDCA’s
“misbranding
provisions
govern
how
drugs
may
be
marketed;
they
do
not
govern
whether
federal
healthcare
programs
will
reimburse
for
the
drugs,
as
prescribed
for
particular
patients.”
That
brief
was
signed
by
Brett
Shumate,
the
head
of
the
Civil
Division
at
Main
Justice
—
the
same
Brett
Shumate
whose
name
is
on
the
enforcement
filings
in
the
RIH
subpoena
cases.
In
short,
literally
everything
about
this
filing
shows
why
the
DOJ
is
not
entitled
to
the
presumption
of
regularity
in
this
case
or
any
other.
BFFR
No
one
really
believes
that
the
administration
currently
leaping
in
to
save
Janssen
is
actually
concerned
about
accurate
drug
labeling.
Just
a
week
into
his
second
term,
Trump
signed
an
executive
order
targeting
gender
affirming
care
for
minors.
Since
then,
he’s
continued
his
war
against
“mutilization”
by
threatening
hospitals
who
treat
trans
kids
with
the
catastrophic
loss
of
federal
funds.
In
a
gleefully
vicious
memo
last
April,
Bondi
announced
that
she
was
“directing
the
Civil
Division’s
Consumer
Protection
Branch
to
undertake
appropriate
investigations
of
any
violations
of
the
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
by
manufacturers
and
distributors
engaged
in
misbranding
by
making
false
claims
about
the
on-
or
off-label
use
of
puberty
blockers,
sex
hormones,
or
any
other
drug
used
to
facilitate
a
child’s
so-called
‘gender
transition.’”
“Even
if
otherwise
truthful,
the
promotion
of
off-label
uses
of
hormones—including
through
informal
campaigns
like
those
conducted
by
sales
reps
or
under
the
guise
of
sponsored
continuing
medical
education
courses—run
afoul
of
the
FDA’s
prohibitions
on
misbranding
and
mislabeling,”
she
warned.
Subpoenaing
children’s
medical
records
is
crucial
to
the
plan
to
cut
off
access
to
care
by
terrorizing
doctors
and
hospitals,
all
while
leaving
drug
manufacturers
unharmed.
The
Child
Advocate
put
it
plainly:
“If
accepted,
DOJ’s
theory
would
criminalize
virtually
all
off-label
prescribing
through
the
back
door.
If
a
hospital’s
act
of
dispensing
an
FDA-approved
drug
pursuant
to
a
physician’s
off-label
prescription
automatically
renders
the
drug
‘misbranded’
because
its
labeling
lacks
directions
for
the
off-label
use,
then
every
hospital
that
fills
an
off-label
prescription,
a
routine
and
pervasive
practice
across
American
medicine,
would
be
committing
a
federal
crime.”
Courts
have
thus
far
been
an
impediment
to
DOJ’s
efforts
to
trawl
through
children’s
medical
records.
And
so
the
DOJ
is
resorting
to
self
help,
running
to
one
of
the
only
judges
in
the
country
who
would
countenance
such
a
legally
and
procedurally
improper
maneuver.
Ignoring
the
ample
evidence
of
the
Justice
Department’s
bad
faith,
Judge
O’Connor
denied
RIH’s
request
to
stay
compliance.
The
order
is
a
masterclass
in
circular
reasoning.
The
judge
simply
credited
DOJ’s
claim
that
“substantial
operational
and
decision-making
control
of
the
investigation”
was
being
exercised
in
Texas.
And
he
sneered
at
the
suggestion
that
RIH
could
possibly
suffer
irreparable
harm
from
being
forced
to
produce
records
“as
part
of
a
lawful
criminal
investigation,”
adding
that
“RIH
has
not
shown
how
it
would
be
harmed
rather
than
its
patients,
who
are
third
parties.”
Contrast
this
scornful
contempt
with
Judge
Mary
McElroy
in
Rhode
Island,
a
Trump
appointee.
She
denied
the
DOJ’s
request
to
transfer
the
Child
Advocate’s
case
to
Texas,
finding
that
the
parties
weren’t
the
same
—
the
children
whose
privacy
rights
were
at
stake
were
never
before
the
Texas
court
and
had
no
opportunity
to
be
heard
there.
God
only
knows
what
the
Fifth
Circuit
will
do
with
this
insanity.
Meanwhile,
Trump’s
DOJ
continues
to
write
checks
on
the
accumulated
reserve
of
DOJ
credibility,
even
as
it
empties
the
account
with
shoddy,
mendacious
filings
and
transparent
forum
shopping.
Bondi,
Blanche,
and
their
minions
have
destroyed
the
presumption
of
regularity,
once
a
load-bearing
pillar
of
the
federal
legal
system.
An
administration
that
cannot
win
on
the
law
tells
lies
about
the
facts.
An
administration
that
cannot
win
on
the
facts
lies
about
the
law.
And
when
courts
push
back,
it
runs
to
the
one
courthouse
in
the
country
where
it
knows
it
can
pound
the
table
and
get
whatever
it
wants.
Liz
Dye produces
the
Law
and
Chaos Substack and podcast. You
can
subscribe
by
clicking
the
logo:
