By: Paul Goldberg – Senior Correspondent | LGBT Politics USA
LAS VEGAS, NV — (June 10, 2026) — A federal indictment filed against LGBTQ rights attorney Carl Charles has been dismissed, bringing an unexpected conclusion to a closely watched legal case connected to an investigation into alleged “judge shopping” during challenges to Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
Charles, an attorney with Lambda Legal, had been accused of making false statements during a federal inquiry examining whether attorneys involved in litigation against Alabama’s transgender healthcare restrictions attempted to influence where their cases would be heard.
Now Trending on LGBT Business Finance News on JRL CHARTS:
• LGBTQ Business Owners Join Growing Coalition Against Bank Account Closures
• U.S. Debt Nears $41 Trillion Ceiling as Economists Warn of Business and Market Risks
• China’s Rising Yuan Could Hit LGBTQ Businesses Worldwide
• Project 2025 Already 50% Complete: Inside Trump’s Plan Reshaping America
• U.S. Banking Rule Ends ‘Reputational Risk’ Barrier, Expands Access for Legal Businesses
• Inflation EXPLODES to 3.8% as Iran War Drives Prices Higher, Wages Fall Behind
• LGBTQ Corporate Participation Plunges 65% in 2026 as DEI Retreat Reshapes Business Landscape
According to a court filing submitted by Charles’ defense team, the indictment was dismissed pursuant to a sealed court order. Federal court records show the case was officially terminated on February 11, though the court has not publicly disclosed the reason for the dismissal.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama declined to comment, citing the sealed nature of the court’s order. Attorneys representing Charles and representatives from Lambda Legal did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Lambda Legal had previously criticized the prosecution, describing the indictment as “an outrageous act of governmental overreach.”
Investigation Stemmed from Alabama Transgender Care Litigation
The criminal case emerged amid broader national debates surrounding gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth. During the administration of President Donald Trump, federal agencies launched multiple reviews and investigations involving healthcare providers and legal challenges connected to transgender medical treatment.
Charles, who previously served in the U.S. Department of Justice during President Joe Biden’s administration, became a focus of scrutiny after a judicial investigation into litigation strategies used to challenge Alabama’s restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
In February 2025, U.S. District Judge Liles Burke sanctioned three attorneys involved in the litigation. Burke concluded that the lawyers had attempted to circumvent the federal court’s random case assignment process by withdrawing lawsuits assigned to him and refiling legal challenges in another federal district within Alabama.
Judge Burke, who was appointed by President Trump, stated that the attorneys sought to “game the system” in an effort to secure a different judge for the case.
Judicial Panel Examined Alleged Judge Shopping
A three-judge investigative panel later reviewed the circumstances surrounding the litigation and concluded that the attorneys pursued the alternative filing strategy because they considered Burke a “bad draw” for their legal challenge.
Despite the procedural disputes, the newly filed lawsuit ultimately returned to Burke’s courtroom. He later issued a ruling blocking Alabama’s law restricting gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors. That ruling was subsequently overturned by a federal appeals court, allowing the law to take effect.
The legal landscape shifted further when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar Tennessee law, marking a significant victory for states seeking to regulate gender-affirming healthcare for minors.
False Statement Allegation Centered on Court Assignment Inquiry
Federal prosecutors alleged that Charles falsely testified during the judge-shopping investigation when he denied contacting a judge’s chambers in April 2022 regarding the assignment of a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s transgender healthcare law.
Following the indictment, every federal judge in Alabama’s Middle District recused themselves from the case. The matter was ultimately reassigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida.
With the indictment now dismissed and the court’s order remaining under seal, questions remain regarding the circumstances that led federal prosecutors to end the case.
The dismissal marks the latest chapter in an ongoing national legal battle involving transgender healthcare, judicial ethics, and the role of federal courts in resolving politically charged constitutional disputes.
For continuing coverage of LGBTQ civil rights litigation, transgender healthcare policy, and federal court developments impacting the LGBTQ community, stay with JRL CHARTS LGBT Politics USA.
// Affiliate Disclosure: JRL CHARTS is a digital news and media platform. We do not host, stream, or sell adult content. Some outbound links may contain affiliate tracking to licensed studio-owned platforms (e.g., LatinBoyz, AEBN, BiLatin Men). These links lead to legal, age-gated distributors and are provided strictly for editorial and informational purposes only.
