Supreme Court blocks gender-care denial for prisoners
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
The Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a block on prison gender-affirming care.
The block stays while the lawsuit proceeds, affecting up to 1,000 transgender federal inmates.
Background
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the federal agency that runs U.S. prisons, had for decades provided gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy to inmates who were transitioning. In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order prohibiting such care for transgender people in federal prisons, and the BOP later issued a policy carrying it out. Three incarcerated transgender people sued on behalf of about 1,000 transgender people in BOP custody, and a federal judge blocked the policy; the Supreme Court's order leaves that block in place while the case continues.
How it unfolded
- January 2025President Trump issued an executive order prohibiting gender-affirming care for transgender people in federal prisons.
- March 2025Two transgender men and one transgender woman in federal facilities in New Jersey, Minnesota and Florida filed a class action on behalf of about 1,000 transgender people in BOP custody.
- June 2025The federal district court in Washington, D.C., preliminarily enjoined the ban.
- February 2026The BOP issued Program Statement 5260.01, which still prohibited gender-affirming health care to treat gender dysphoria, including hormone therapy and social accommodations.
- Jun 17, 2026The federal district court in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction blocking the BOP from enforcing the Program Statement and ordering it to continue providing gender-affirming care under its pre-order policy while the lawsuit proceeds.
- Sep 18, 2026The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused the administration's request to lift the district judge's ruling.
- Oct 21, 2026The Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's emergency application to lift the injunction, leaving the block in place while litigation proceeds.
Who’s saying what
- Support
- ACLU attorneys called the order a critical ruling, saying denial of medically necessary health care to people in prison violates their constitutional rights.
- Official
- The Trump administration argued its policy was properly adopted, that the judge overstepped, and that the policy addresses nationwide security and prison-administrative concerns.
- Caution
- Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have granted the administration's emergency request to stop the treatments.
- Expert
- Judge Royce Lamberth called the government action arbitrary and capricious, saying it failed to seriously consider its own years of experience providing the care.
Still unverified
The Supreme Court's order was unsigned and unexplained, and Justices Alito and Thomas did not explain their reasoning; the Washington Blade said it reached out to the White House for a response but did not hear back by publication time.