The takeaway here is that he’s actually received a Target Letter, which indicates a strong belief that there is substantial evidence against him and that criminal charges are being seriously considered. It’s a procedural step, and one that many people likely inferred, but it is important and shows a concrete stance on the investigation. It’s worth noting that “Target” is a specifically defined legal term in this context, on relevant part:

A “target” is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant…

USAM 9-11.151

This is particularly galling as the standard applied originally came from Glucksburg. Glucksburg was a case on physician assisted suicide where the Court applied the “not deeply rooted in and offensive to US tradition” standard being cited here, but also held that the state had a rational and compelling interest in banning physician assisted suicide for the preservation of life and to protect the mentally disabled or ill from medical malpractice or coercion. But in the case of gender affirming care the science and medical practice supports the opposite–gender affirming care drastically reduces suicide rates and provides significantly better outcomes for those with gender dysphoria. They appear to be applying half of the reasoning of Glucksburg while directly going against the second half. That’s not even touching the sex discrimination argument, which is compelling in its own right. I’m ashamed to live in the 6th Circuit today.