Pro Bono
First Circuit Cases Test the Limits of Federal Administrative Subpoenas
Administrative subpoenas are among the federal government’s most powerful investigative tools, allowing agencies to compel the production of documents and information long before any lawsuit or criminal charges are filed. But those powers are not unlimited. They must be exercised for a legitimate, congressionally authorized purpose, not to advance policy objectives outside the scope of the law.
Two closely watched appeals currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ask the court to clarify the limits of the federal government’s administrative subpoena authority: The Children’s Hospital Corporation, d/b/a Boston Children’s Hospital v. United States Department of Justice and Child Advocate for Rhode Island, et al., v. United States of America.
Anderson & Kreiger LLP attorneys Austin P. Anderson and Sean P. O’Neill joined Miriam Rosenbaum of the Brennan Center for Justice and Joseph Gaeta in filing friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of a bipartisan group of 54 former senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials (including three current Anderson & Kreiger attorneys) supporting decisions by federal district courts that blocked DOJ subpoenas issued to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) and Rhode Island Hospital concerning their provision of gender-affirming case. The briefs do not address the merits of gender-affirming care but instead focus on a broader issue with implications far beyond these cases: preserving the integrity of federal investigations and ensuring that DOJ’s investigative authority is exercised properly.
The Cases
In June 2025, the DOJ reportedly issued administrative subpoenas to approximately 20 providers of gender-affirming care across the country, seeking extensive internal documents and confidential patient records as part of what it described as an investigation into potential federal healthcare offenses.
Boston Children’s Hospital challenged one of those subpoenas in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court concluded that it was “abundantly clear” the subpoena’s true purpose was to interfere with Massachusetts’ decision to protect gender-affirming care, intimidate providers, and discourage patients from seeking care. It held that the government had failed to demonstrate a proper investigative purpose and that the subpoena had been issued in bad faith.
A similar dispute arose in Rhode Island after the DOJ sought to enforce its subpoena against Rhode Island Hospital in the Northern District of Texas. The Rhode Island Child Advocate, a statutory office charged with protecting the rights of children in state care, moved to quash the subpoena in the District of Rhode Island. That court likewise blocked enforcement, concluding that the subpoena lacked a congressionally authorized purpose, was issued for an improper purpose, and sought records that could not be obtained consistent with the constitutional privacy rights of Rhode Island children.
The DOJ has appealed both decisions to the First Circuit.
The Broader Issue Before the Court
The amicus briefs highlight a question that extends well beyond the specific healthcare context: may the federal government use its investigative powers to accomplish political or policy objectives unrelated to legitimate investigation into violations of federal law?
Drawing on decades of institutional experience, the former DOJ officials explain that the Department has long maintained policies and practices designed to ensure investigations are driven by facts, law, and legitimate law enforcement objectives, not unrelated policy goals. Those safeguards help preserve DOJ’s independence and public confidence in the integrity of federal law enforcement.
The briefs note that the public record reflects significant departures from those longstanding DOJ norms. According to the amici, those departures support the district courts’ findings that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose rather than to advance a legitimate federal investigation.
The briefs argue that the Executive Branch cannot use investigative authority to accomplish policy objectives that Congress has not authorized. Administrative subpoenas exist to gather information relevant to lawful investigations, not to pressure organizations into changing lawful conduct to suit the administration’s policy preferences.
The amici also argue that allowing investigative powers to be used in this way would upset the constitutional balance between Congress and the Executive. They therefore urge the First Circuit to reaffirm that federal investigative authority must remain tied to a legitimate statutory purpose and exercised in good faith.
Why These Cases Matter Beyond Healthcare
Although these appeals arise from subpoenas issued to providers of gender-affirming care, their significance reaches much further.
Administrative subpoenas are routinely used by federal agencies investigating hospitals, healthcare systems, educational institutions, municipalities, financial institutions, contractors, nonprofit organizations, and other regulated entities.
These cases serve as an important reminder that federal investigative authority is subject to meaningful legal limits. Courts have long recognized that administrative subpoenas must be issued for a proper purpose and within the scope of statutory authority. The First Circuit’s decisions may provide important guidance on how courts evaluate claims that those limits have been exceeded and when recipients may successfully challenge an administrative subpoena.
Anderson & Kreiger is proud to represent the bipartisan group of 54 former senior Department of Justice officials who submitted these amicus briefs alongside the Brennan Center for Justice. The First Circuit’s forthcoming decisions could help define the limits of federal investigative authority for any organization subject to an administrative subpoena.
