Supreme Court Keeps Trump Trans Inmate Care Limits on Hold

TL;DR: The Supreme Court declined to let the Trump administration enforce limits on transgender inmates’ medical care. The order leaves a lower-court block in place but does not settle whether the policy is lawful.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to let the Trump administration enforce restrictions on medical care for transgender inmates in federal prisons, leaving a lower-court block in place as the case proceeds.

The brief October 21 order gave no reasons for denying the administration’s emergency request. It does state, however, that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted it. The action settles only whether the policy can take effect at this stage. It does not decide the case’s broader legal claims.

The Bureau of Prisons policy would end transition-related surgeries, bar new hormone treatment and gradually reduce hormones for inmates already receiving them. It would also withdraw items such as makeup and wigs while giving priority to psychotherapy, according to the federal appeals court’s September order.

The challenge, Kingdom v. Trump, began with three federal inmates whose prison medical providers had diagnosed gender dysphoria and prescribed hormone therapy. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the inmates, their treatment had been suspended or they had been told it would soon stop. The group says the class action was filed on behalf of roughly 2,000 transgender people in federal custody.

The inmates argue that denying needed care violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Their suit also challenges the policy under federal law governing agency decisions, equal protection and disability rights. Those claims remain disputed.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the restrictions. The administration then sought permission to enforce them during its appeal, but a divided D.C. Circuit panel rejected that request in September.

The appeals court majority said the Bureau had failed to adequately weigh its own record of providing the care. It also faulted officials for citing security concerns without addressing whether those problems had occurred under the prior policy.

Judge Justin Walker dissented. He argued that federal prison litigation law likely barred the district court from repeatedly renewing its temporary injunction. His dissent raised a separate question about the limits on judges’ power to oversee prison policy.

In his dissent, Walker focused on the limits Congress placed on court oversight of prisons. He argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act likely barred Lamberth from renewing a 90-day preliminary injunction through a series of fresh orders. Walker also said the block improperly intruded on the executive branch’s authority to run federal prisons, causing harm that justified allowing the policy to take effect during the appeal. The panel’s majority rejected that request, finding that the government had not made a strong enough case that it would prevail.

The administration took its emergency request to the Supreme Court on September 28. Wednesday’s denial leaves the existing injunction in place while the appeal continues.