The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to intervene in an ongoing legal battle concerning the medical treatment of transgender inmates in the federal prison system. The court’s unsigned, one-line order leaves in place a lower court ruling that currently prevents the Trump administration from enforcing a policy designed to end certain medical interventions for transgender prisoners.
While the majority of the court rejected the emergency appeal from the Justice Department, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas signaled they would have granted the request to allow the administration to move forward with the policy change.
The disputed regulations, which the Trump administration had sought to enforce, would have terminated access to hormone therapy, surgical procedures, and various social accommodations—such as makeup, breast binders, wigs, and padding—for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. These rules were established following an executive order from President Trump that barred the use of federal funds for medical treatments related to gender transitions for individuals in Bureau of Prisons custody.
In February, the Bureau of Prisons formally introduced the policy, noting that inmates already receiving hormone therapy would be subjected to a tapering plan that would eventually phase out their treatment entirely. Agency officials argued in a memo that the shift was intended to align with current scientific information and to address security and administrative complexities within the correctional environment.
The legal challenge, filed last year on behalf of one transgender woman and two transgender men, contends that the Bureau of Prisons has successfully provided hormone treatments to inmates with gender dysphoria since 1992. Plaintiffs argue that the new directive would abruptly halt care for approximately 1,000 inmates currently in the bureau’s custody.
Li Nowlin-Sohl, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs, praised the court’s decision, calling it a vital protection for incarcerated transgender individuals. She asserted that withholding medically necessary care constitutes a violation of fundamental constitutional rights and committed to continuing the legal defense of her clients. Witkoff faces backlash for calling Putin a “humanitarian”: “Embarrassing and outrageous.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who first blocked the policy in June, observed that the government had failed to comply with federal law when implementing the restrictions. Lamberth emphasized that his decision was not an entry into cultural debates but rather a finding that the government’s procedural and legal justifications were insufficient. A subsequent 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court’s injunction, noting that the bureau had not adequately weighed its own long-standing experience providing such care. The court does not wade into the culture war being waged against transgender individuals,” Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in a 31-page decision. “The court simply concludes that the government violated [federal law] when it issued a new policy restricting the provision of gender-affirming care to inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the district court’s injunction improperly interfered with the executive branch’s ability to set policy. Sauer maintained that the bureau had carefully considered its prior experience in concluding that these interventions were not medically necessary, while also citing the need to maintain institutional security. DOJ’s inspector general declines to investigate prosecutors who falsely charged Olympian David Hearn in Reflecting Pool case.
Challengers have disputed these claims, pointing out that the agency failed to produce evidence of any security incidents linked to the provision of gender-affirming care.
Legal representatives for the inmates highlighted that the administrative record lacked any indication from bureau doctors that such treatments were harmful or unhelpful, suggesting the justifications were contrived to satisfy the president’s executive order. Surely BOP would have mentioned it in the administrative record,” lawyers for the plaintiffs said. “That glaring omission, as well as the unreasonableness of its decision, make it clear that the rationales were contrived to support the demand President Trump made in the EO, had BOP’s doctors found this treatment unhelpful or harmful to patients or had the agency found that the treatment compromised security.
As the litigation proceeds, the current injunction remains in force, requiring the government to continue providing standard medical interventions and social accommodations to the affected inmate population. According to bush’s brother Neil Bush, He voted for James Talarico in Texas Senate race.
