|
This week’s newsletter discusses lawsuits concerning public health funding cuts, health claims relating to dietary supplements, subpoenas for gender-affirming care providers, and two petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding doctors’ rights to free speech. If you would like to read any of our past newsletters, please access the archive on our website here.
Public Health Funding Cuts
In State of Illinois et al. v Vought et al. (Case No. 1:26-CV-1566, U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois), the State of Illinois, joined by California, Colorado, and Minnesota, filed suit against the Director of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Russell Vought, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), President Donald Trump, and the United States challenging a directive from OMB ordering the termination of federal public health grant funding.
The complaint, filed on February 11, 2026, alleges that on February 9, 2026, HHS notified Congress of its intent to terminate more than $600 million in CDC grants to the Plaintiff states by initiating a three-day countdown clock. Plaintiffs allege that this “Targeting Directive” (the Directive), originating from OMB and put into effect by HHS and the CDC, stemmed from President Trump’s threats to stop making any payments to “sanctuary cities.” According to the complaint, the funding cuts are retaliation, penalizing the plaintiffs for their political disagreements with the President’s administration on policy matters.
Plaintiffs assert multiple constitutional and statutory claims: they allege that the Directive (1) violates the Tenth Amendment by singling out states for harmful executive action based on their exercise of sovereign power; (2) violates the separation of powers because the executive branch has overridden Congress’s constitutional power to direct appropriations; (3) violates the Spending Clause by attempting to impose retroactive conditions on funding; (4) violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because it has no statutory basis and is beyond the President’s authority; and, (5) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, because it singles out jurisdictions not based on any rational purpose, but rather based on partisan animus. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
On February 12, 2026, the Court granted a temporary restraining order in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Health Claims on Dietary Supplements
In Alliance for Natural Health USA v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Docket No. 1:26-cv-00172, U.S. District Court Washington, DC), Plaintiffs Alliance for Natural Health USA, Living Fuel International, Inc., Health Ranger Store, Inc., and Cardio Miracle (health and wellness companies or advocates) filed a lawsuit on January 21, 2026, against HHS and its Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary challenging FDA's denial of health claims for dietary supplements.
On September 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a “Notification of Health Claims Based on Authoritative Statements” with the FDA seeking permission to use 118 health claims on their supplement labels, 114 of which were nutrient-disease risk reduction claims summarizing government statements backed by scientific references. The claims included statements such as “Vitamin D reduces the risk of rickets in children,” “Magnesium may reduce the risk of migraine headaches,” and “Zinc may reduce the duration of the common cold.” On December 23, 2025, FDA denied 114 of the 118 claims, concluding they were not “authoritative statements” despite being drawn, according to the plaintiffs, from government publications. The FDA ruled the statements did not represent “official” or “consensus” positions of the health agencies, even though the agencies had published them to inform the public.
Plaintiffs argue that under the First Amendment, the FDA cannot constitutionally suppress the health labeling claims if the claims are derived from the government's own publications and are backed by scientific evidence. They claim FDA has no lawful statutory or constitutional authority to question the truthfulness of statements made by other government health agencies. Plaintiffs contend FDA violated: (1) part of the FDA Modernization Act (21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(3)(C)) by imposing requirements not specified in the statute; (2) the constitutional avoidance doctrine by adopting an interpretation of the statute (21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(3)(C)) that raises serious First Amendment issues; and (3) the First Amendment protections for commercial speech as established in Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999), by suppressing science-backed claims without considering less restrictive alternatives such as claim qualifications or disclaimers.
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that FDA's denial was unlawful, and an order reversing the denial and allowing the 114 health claims to enter the market on supplement labels.
Health Information and Gender-Affirming Care
In June 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) served QueerDoc, a telehealth provider of gender-affirming care, an administrative subpoena requesting an array of documents and data, including personnel records, communications with manufacturers and pharmacies providing puberty-delaying medications or hormones, and medical records for each patient–including minors–prescribed puberty-delaying medications. This subpoena followed President Trump's January 2025 Executive Order that characterized the lawful provision of gender affirming care by licensed medical professional as “maiming and sterilizing” young children, and Attorney General Pam Bondi's April 2025 internal memo to DOJ employees to investigate medical providers that distribute puberty blockers, sex hormones, and similar drugs.
QueerDoc filed a motion to quash the subpoena on July 8, 2025, stating the subpoena was overly broad and lacked a legitimate investigative purpose. QueerDoc argued that administrative subpoenas must be conducted to pursue a legitimate purpose, while this subpoena was issued to harass, rather than to “investigate federal healthcare offenses.” In October 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order, quashing the subpoena, ruling that it was issued for an improper purpose and that the DOJ was trying to “pressure providers to cease offering gender-affirming care rather than to investigate specific unlawful conduct.”
DOJ appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the subpoena is part of an investigation into violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act when providing gender affirming care to minors, and that use of puberty blockers potentially violates the FDA’s approval for use. There will be a hearing on the appeal on March 6, 2026. QueerDoc, PLLC v. DOJ (Docket No. 25-7384, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit).
Over twenty materially identical subpoenas have been issued to other healthcare providers offering gender-affirming care across the country for investigations into healthcare fraud, false statements, and more. Attorney General Bondi included in her statement on the DOJ’s actions that the purpose of these subpoenas is to hold accountable medical professionals who “mutilated children.” Federal courts in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington have quashed or limited these subpoenas, concluding that they were issued for improper use. To date, no courts have ruled in DOJ's favor.
Doctors’ Rights to Free Speech
There are two petitions for certiorari pending before the United States Supreme Court in cases from the Ninth Circuit relating to the First Amendment rights of physicians. In July 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards recommended that its state member boards sanction physicians for spreading COVID-19 misinformation to the public and to patients. These two Ninth Circuit cases followed as some state boards adopted this recommendation.
In Kory et al. v. Bonta et al. (Docket No. 2:2024cv00001, U.S. District Court Eastern District California; Docket No. 24-2946, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), Plaintiffs include three California physicians who claim that the state's threat of disciplinary action related to their statements on COVID-19 violated their First Amendment right to free speech. In 2022, California's medical board announced that it would implement a policy to sanction physicians for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. All three Plaintiffs, whose actions include recommending Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 or providing general misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine to patients, argue that the information they provide to patients may subject them to Board investigation and prosecution. They filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to allow them to share their opinions, advice, or recommendations about COVID-19 with their patients, even if it goes against the medical standard of care. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that a physician’s speech to patients is unprotected by the First Amendment because it is incidental to medical care. In their petition to the Supreme Court, Plaintiffs argue that the Court must intervene and not allow state medical boards to suppress physicians from providing patients with dissenting information. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the petition.
In Stockton et al. v. Brown et al. (Docket No. 2:24-CV-00071, U.S District Court, Eastern District Washington; Docket No. 24-3777, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit), Plaintiffs include Washington physicians who claim that the state medical commission's adoption of a policy to sanction physicians who spread COVID-19 misinformation to the public and patients violates their First Amendment right to speak out about matters of public interest. As in Kory, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against future actions by the Washington Medical Commission to investigate, prosecute, or sanction them for COVID-19 misinformation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the action against the Attorney General of Washington and the Executive Director of the Washington Medical Commission, finding that the state’s policy served an important state interest. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this petition either.
| 
