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.
Turkish police have arrested at least 162 people and raided bars, clubs, and LGBTQ association offices as part of a broader government campaign purportedly aimed at protecting "family values."
Around 1 a.m. on Sept. 13, police carried out simultaneous raids in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Aydin, and Mersin, breaking into LGBTQ association offices, bars, nightclubs, and other community gathering places. Police also raided a hammam (public steam bath) that authorities claimed was being used for prostitution.
President Donald Trump used an anti-transgender slur in an October 5 social media post attacking Annie Andrews, South Carolina's Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat previously held by the late Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.
In the Truth Social post, Trump paired Andrews' first name with a rhyming anti-transgender slur.
"Annie 'Trannie' Andrews is running against our wonderful Darline Graham for the Senate in South Carolina," Trump wrote in an endorsement of Graham. "Darline is a High Quality person, maybe the Highest, and Annie Trannie is not, in particular, as it pertains to representing the Values of the Great People of South Carolina -- She is in favor of Transgender for Everyone, Open Borders, Defunding the Police, High Taxes, a Weak Military, and will absolutely fight to take your guns away -- In other words, she is against our Great Second Amendment!"
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will limit its enforcement of certain gender-identity discrimination claims against members of the Christian Employers Alliance under a new settlement.
The Christian Employers Alliance (CEA), a group representing Christian employers, sued the EEOC in January 2025, arguing that the agency "improperly applied Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to force employers to affirm and accommodate" transgender employees, reports HR Brew.
CEA claims the agency did this under the Biden administration, including through 2024 guidance addressing pronoun use and access to facilities consistent with employees' gender identity. The group also objected to the EEOC's position on employer-sponsored insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, arguing that these requirements could conflict with some members' religious beliefs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.