The Texas Supreme Court Friday that the Texas Attorney General鈥檚 Office can require LGBTQ advocacy group PFLAG to turn over documents related to an investigation into medical care for transgender minors.
The court overturned a previous district court decision that had largely blocked the AG鈥檚 office from seeking certain records.
The dispute stems from a civil investigative demand issued in 2024 by Texas AG Ken Paxton. His office is investigating whether medical providers may have violated state law by misleading insurers about treatments provided to transgender minors.
How the case began
The Attorney General鈥檚 office began seeking records after PFLAG submitted an affidavit banning certain gender-affirming medical treatments for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
In that filing, the group鈥檚 executive director said families with transgender adolescents were discussing 鈥渃ontingency plans鈥� and 鈥渁lternative avenues to maintain care in Texas.鈥�
State investigators argued those comments suggested the group might have information about doctors continuing to provide treatments banned under Texas law and requested related records from PFLAG.
in February 2024. A Travis County judge initially sided with the group and limited what records PFLAG had to provide. The attorney general鈥檚 office appealed directly to the state鈥檚 highest civil court.
What the court decided
, the Texas Supreme Court said the lower court improperly interfered with the state鈥檚 investigation, emphasizing that , the AG doesn鈥檛 have to prove someone has relevant documents before requesting them.
鈥淭he district court should not have faulted the Attorney General鈥檚 office for failing to 鈥榩roduce evidence to suggest that PFLAG likely possessed information relevant to the OAG鈥檚 investigation.鈥� That was not the Attorney General鈥檚 burden,鈥� the ruling read. 鈥淯nder the statute鈥檚 plain text, belief 鈥� not proof 鈥� will suffice.鈥�
The court said PFLAG must turn over several categories of documents, including:
- Communications about 鈥渃ontingency plans鈥� or alternative care options
- Referrals or lists of health care providers for transgender youth in Texas
- Communications involving certain health care providers referenced in the investigation
- Records tied to the executive director鈥檚 comments in the lawsuit affidavit about families seeking ways to maintain care in Texas
However, the court said some other requests 鈥� including certain internal organizational documents 鈥� weren鈥檛 clearly relevant and don鈥檛 have to be handed over.
The justices noted the AG 鈥渁greed to allow redactions to preserve anonymity鈥� for families or children named in the documents. also limits how the AG鈥檚 office can disclose materials gathered through investigative demands.
The case now returns to Travis County district court for further proceedings.
