Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


State asks for medical records of transgender youth in court case

Plaintiffs are challenging the motion, saying those records are confidential and could lead to criminal charges under the new law.

In the latest back and forth between the state and the plaintiffs in BOE v. Marshall, the state is now asking for the parents of transgender youth to provide their children’s medical records as evidence in the case.

This is the latest development in the court case that has temporarily blocked Alabama’s law criminalizing the provision of medical care to Alabama children experiencing gender dysphoria.

A motion filed by the state Thursday asks the parents to produce the following records:

  • All medical records in your possession of any child of yours which relates to treatment for gender dysphoria or a related condition.
  • All documents in your possession of any mental health treatment provided to a child of yours who has been treated for gender dysphoria or a related condition.
  • All documents between you and any medical provider or mental health professional who has treated a child of yours for gender dysphoria or a related condition.
  • All calendars, notes, or other documents, reflecting the dates of any treatment of a child of yours for Gender Dysphoria or a Related Condition.
  • All forms, disclosures, or other Documents provided to you by any Health Care Provider or mental health provider who has treated a child of yours for Gender Dysphoria or a Related Condition.

The plaintiffs responded that those records are confidential, and could lead to criminal charges under the new law.

The crux of the law makes it a felony for doctors to prescribe, or anyone, to provide puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children. The law also bans gender affirming surgeries on children, which have never been performed in the state.

U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke enjoined the law days after it tool effect, noting that the plaintiffs are likely to win the case on the merits when it is argued in full. 

Since then, the state and the plaintiffs, including the U.S. Department of Justice, have traded jabs over evidence. A subpoena by the DOJ requesting info on the Eagle Forum and Southeast Law Institute activities has already been struck down, and a group of medical organization that are amicus parties to the case have also challenged the state’s subpoenas into their activities.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The next hearing in the case is Feb. 8

Jacob Holmes is a reporter at the Alabama Political Reporter. You can reach him at [email protected]

More from the Alabama Political Reporter


The state spent more than $500,000 on experts and nearly $1 million on legal counsel from influential D.C. law firm Cooper and Kirk.


Counsel for the parties said the subpoenas go outside the scope of the lawsuit and infringe their First Amendment rights.


Southeast Law Institute is also fighting an identical subpoena, arguing that the requested documents are irrelevant to the case.


Brooks had previously turned down a request to voluntarily speak with the committee investigating the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol.


U.S. District Judge Liles Burke has not yet issued a ruling on a preliminary injunction. A hearing on the injunction concluded Friday afternoon.


It has already accrued a number of lawsuits challenging its legality since its passage during the 2022 legislative session.


Leading physicians and law experts from Yale University say Alabama's law gets the science behind transgender care wrong, and places lives at risk.


Two similar lawsuits were dropped Friday without explanation, but counsel for the plaintiffs said they expect those suits to be refiled.