Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Restrict Gender-Affirming Care for Inmates
- Supreme Court rejected a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to immediately enforce a policy restricting gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in federal prisons.
- The decision marks a rare legal defeat for the administration at the nation’s top judicial body on transgender policy.
- Issued in February, the Bureau of Prisons policy prohibits medical and surgical treatments alongside social accommodations such as clothing and hair-removal devices that could alter an inmate's appearance...
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to immediately enforce a policy restricting gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in federal prisons. The brief, unsigned order denied the Justice Department’s emergency request to lift a lower court order that blocks the Federal Bureau of Prisons from implementing the measure while legal challenges continue.
The decision marks a rare legal defeat for the administration at the nation’s top judicial body on transgender policy. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented from the decision, noting they would have allowed the administration to enforce the changes immediately.
Issued in February, the Bureau of Prisons policy prohibits medical and surgical treatments alongside social accommodations such as clothing and hair-removal devices that could alter an inmate’s appearance to align with their gender identity. Under the rules, inmates receiving hormone treatments could face a tapering plan leading to discontinuation, though psychiatric services would remain available.
Three transgender inmates incarcerated in New Jersey, Florida, and Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the directive. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs stated that reversing decades of protocol—the federal prison system has provided hormone therapy to people with gender dysphoria since at least 1992—would cause immediate and catastrophic harm, including increased depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
Appeals and Future Litigation
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the restrictions in June after concluding that the policy was likely arbitrary and capricious under federal agency procedures. Lamberth wrote in his decision that the Federal Bureau of Prisons disregarded its own evidence and reverse-engineered the measure to satisfy the executive order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently refused to lift Lamberth’s ruling on September 18.
The Justice Department defended the rules in court filings by arguing that the agency decided to prioritize mental health treatment while discontinuing medically disputed and unproven interventions. The administration maintained that the changes were necessary to maintain institutional security and address complex correctional administration concerns.
The underlying lawsuit will continue to play out in lower courts while the preliminary injunction remains in place. With more than 2,000 transgender individuals currently in federal facilities and halfway houses, the final resolution of the litigation will determine long-term medical access across the federal prison system.
The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights.
Li Nowlin-Sohl
The Supreme Court has maintained a 6-3 conservative majority and has ruled against transgender rights in several other key disputes over the past year, including backing state bans on transgender athletes in public schools and allowing military service restrictions. The high court’s latest action leaves the district court’s block active as the legal battle over prison medical policy proceeds.
Legal representatives for the inmates indicated they will continue defending the constitutional rights of incarcerated clients as the case returns to the lower courts.