In a notable legal development this week, a district court judge found themselves at the center of a contentious case concerning the Trump administration’s Justice Department. The case involves investigations into doctors who perform surgeries related to “transgender care” and prescribe “gender-affirming” medications to their patients.

Judges are traditionally expected to make decisions that adhere to the Constitution’s guidelines. However, questions arose on Monday at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle regarding whether this standard was maintained. The judge’s decision seemed influenced by broader political implications, as highlighted in the courtroom discussion.

Judge Whitehead, in a notable statement, expressed concerns about the intentions behind the government’s actions. “This is not speculation about hidden motives—it is the Administration’s explicit agenda,” Whitehead remarked. “The Government seeks the ‘intended effect’ of its Executive Orders, and these subpoenas aim to ‘downsize or eliminate’ all gender-affirming care. No clearer evidence of improper purpose could exist than the Government’s own repeated declarations that it seeks to end the very practice it claims to be merely investigating.”

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead ruled that a wide-ranging subpoena the Justice Department served in June on QueerDoc, a medical practice offering gender-affirming care online, cannot be enforced because the demand was not part of a legitimate law enforcement investigation.

Whitehead, a Biden appointee, said it was apparent that the subpoena is intended to advance President Donald Trump’s goal of wiping out such care for people with gender dysphoria.

“This is not speculation about hidden motives — it is the Administration’s explicit agenda, The Government seeks the ‘intended effect’ of its Executive Orders,” Whitehead wrote, “and these subpoenas to ‘downsize or eliminate’ all gender-affirming care. No clearer evidence of improper purpose could exist than the Government’s own repeated declarations that it seeks to end the very practice it claims to be merely investigating.”