United States Supreme Court – Photo: Sean Pavone via iStockphoto
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an emergency request from the Trump administration to overturn a lower court’s order blocking restrictions on gender-affirming medical care and social accommodations for transgender inmates in federal prisons, as reported by Chris Geidner at Law Dork.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order defining sex as biologically determined at conception and refusing to recognize transgender identities. The order also directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to change its policies governing transgender inmates, including where they are housed and their access to medications, clothing, and canteen items.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons announced several policy changes throughout 2025 and 2026 that would deny transgender inmates access to gender-affirming surgery, hormone treatments, and “social accommodations” such as wigs, padding, and makeup, according to NBC News. The Trump administration has also asserted that gender-affirming care is medically suspect and does not alleviate gender dysphoria.
Under the proposed restrictions, transgender inmates would have been limited to mental health services and medications such as antidepressants.
A group of transgender inmates, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued, arguing that the government had failed to adequately justify the changes to medical care and other services available to prisoners. They also alleged that denying medically necessary care worsens their gender dysphoria and violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The case’s lead plaintiffs — Alishea Kingdom, Jas Kapule, and Solo Nichols — have all received hormone therapy for years.
In February 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from restricting gender-affirming care and transferring transgender women out of female prisons.
Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, issued a preliminary injunction in June 2025. In February 2026, he ordered federal prison officials to explain why they should not be held in civil contempt over allegations of retaliation against a transgender inmate involved in the lawsuit. He issued a new preliminary injunction in June 2026 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit required a more individualized assessment of prisoners’ housing placement claims.
In his June 2026 ruling, Lamberth found that the Bureau of Prisons had failed to consider its history of providing gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy, which has been available to inmates with gender dysphoria since 1992. He also found that the agency had failed to provide evidence that such treatments were ineffective or harmful to transgender inmates.
Lamberth concluded that the Bureau of Prisons’ proposed policy changes appeared designed to comply with Trump’s executive order, with the agency’s other justifications serving as a pretext for carrying out the president’s wishes.
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to reject the Trump administration’s request to block Lamberth’s ruling. Solicitor General D. John Sauer accused Lamberth of judicial activism and the court of “substituting its own policy judgment for that of the agency,” according to NBC News.
The Trump administration subsequently filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the request and allowed Lamberth’s injunction to remain in place. The justices did not rule on the merits of the case, leaving open the possibility that the injunction could be overturned later.
The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its decision. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have granted the Trump administration’s request.
The decision marks a rare victory for transgender advocates at the Supreme Court, which has upheld state bans on transgender athletes competing in female-designated sports and gender-affirming care for minors. The court has also allowed the Trump administration to ban transgender people from military service and discharge those already serving.
“Today’s ruling affirms that everyone, trans or not, deserves access to medically necessary health care and to be treated with dignity in federal custody,” said Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, managing attorney at the Transgender Law Center, which is representing the plaintiffs alongside the ACLU and ACLU of D.C.
An estimated 1,000 transgender inmates are currently in federal custody.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a Catholic who is one of the high court's most doctrinaire conservatives, says in a new book that the court's decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was "perhaps the decisive point in our nation's turn against religious liberty."
Alito, who dissented in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, made the claim in a speech at Catholic University of America (CUA) three years after the decision. The remarks were published in So Ordered, a collection of the justice's speeches that he says reflect his judicial philosophy and views of the United States.
The Boise School District will pay $34,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former cisgender student who said she twice encountered a transgender classmate in the girls' restroom at Boise High School in early 2025.
The lawsuit, filed by the right-wing Idaho Family Policy Center Legal Center on behalf of the cisgender student at Boise High School, alleged that the school district permitted the transgender student to use the girls' restroom as part of a "gender support plan," according to Boise NBC affiliate KTVB.
About 100 members of Taipei's LGBTQ community protested outside a local police station on October 4 after officers raided a gay bar, taking 51 people in for questioning and arresting its owner.
The raid on Commander D, a gay bar in Taipei's Wanhua district, took place on the afternoon of October 3, reports Reuters.
Police precinct spokesman Chen Yu-cheng said officers executed a search warrant for suspected "offenses against public morality." He said the people taken in for questioning were suspected of violating a law prohibiting "wantonly exposing one's naked body or presenting a lascivious posture in a public place or publicly accessible place."
You must be logged in to post a comment.