JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s ruling compelling Planned Parenthood Great Plains to comply with a civil investigative demand (CID) related to the state’s investigation into transgender healthcare practices.
The decision concludes that Attorney General Andrew Bailey acted within his authority under state law when seeking information from Planned Parenthood about its potential involvement in practices that may violate the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), according to an April 15 opinion filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District
The case stems from a March 2023 CID issued by the attorney general, seeking documents and information from Planned Parenthood as part of an investigation into the Washington University Pediatric Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital and other healthcare providers.
The CID referenced allegations from a whistleblower who claimed the center engaged in deceptive practices involving gender-affirming care.
The attorney general asserted that Planned Parenthood might hold relevant information or have engaged in similar practices.
Planned Parenthood responded by filing a lawsuit asking the Jackson County Circuit Court to set aside or narrow the CID.
The organization argued that the CID was overly broad, exceeded the attorney general’s legal authority, infringed on constitutional rights, and risked the disclosure of confidential patient information.
However, the circuit court ruled against Planned Parenthood in February 2024, ordering it to comply with the demand. That ruling was temporarily paused while the appeal was considered.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, rejecting each of Planned Parenthood’s arguments. The court emphasized that Missouri’s consumer protection law—the MMPA—grants the Attorney General wide latitude to investigate potential fraud or unfair practices, including in the realm of healthcare services.
The court also highlighted that the CID does not require the release of privileged or confidential information, as it explicitly allows for the withholding of such documents with a proper log.
In dismissing Planned Parenthood’s constitutional claims, the court noted that the CID’s scope was reasonably tied to the attorney general’s investigation into whether providers misrepresented or concealed information related to transgender medical care.
The court found no violation of Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights and determined the information requested was relevant to the purpose of the probe.
Planned Parenthood also argued that the regulation of healthcare providers falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Missouri Board of Healing Arts.
The court disagreed, holding that oversight by licensing boards does not preclude parallel consumer protection investigations when fraud or deception is suspected.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the CID was both lawful and procedurally sound, reinforcing the attorney general’s authority to gather evidence as part of investigations into potential violations of Missouri’s consumer protection laws—even in sensitive areas like healthcare.
Judges Janet Sutton and Alok Ahuja concurred with Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer in the opinion.
Christina M. Wahl, Blake P. Saffels and Diane Peters of Kansas City, represented the appellant.
Bailey, as well as Solicitor General Joshua M. Divine and Assistant Attorney General Caleb Rutledge represented the Attorney General's Office.
Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District case number: WD87008