The Trump administration on Sept. 28 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the Bureau of Prisons to enforce a policy banning gender-affirming care for transgender federal inmates. The BOP says the rule, implemented in February, reflects its independent review of scientific evidence and rejects prior WPATH guidance. A federal judge called the policy arbitrary and capricious, and inmate attorneys say withholding medically necessary care violates the Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court will decide whether to reinstate the policy while litigation continues.
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Reinstate Ban On Gender‑Affirming Care For Federal Inmates
Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an appeal on behalf of the Trump administration on Monday asking the Supreme Court to allow it to revive a policy denying transgender inmates gender-affirming health care and accommodations. File Photo by Jemal Countess/UPI
Sept. 28 — The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to allow the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to enforce a policy that bars transgender inmates in federal custody from receiving gender-affirming medical care.
The appeal asks the high court to overturn a lower-court order that had blocked the BOP from enforcing a rule that prohibits hormone therapy, surgical gender-transition procedures and other gender-affirming accommodations for incarcerated people.
The policy was implemented in February, roughly a year after an executive order from President Donald Trump directed that the attorney general and the Bureau of Prisons must "ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex." The BOP says it adopted the current policy independently and cited "the latest scientific information." The agency also said its prior policy was based on guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which the bureau described as "unreliable."
Legal arguments
In its filing, Solicitor General John Sauer defended the BOP's review of medical evidence, writing that the agency "independently relied on the lack of scientific support for the efficacy of sex-rejecting interventions." He argued the district court "far exceeded its limited and proper role" by second-guessing the agency's evaluation of medical and scientific evidence.
A group of transgender inmates challenged the policy in court. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the administration's new rule was arbitrary and capricious and violated federal law, concluding it was adopted largely to comply with the president's executive order while disregarding contrary evidence.
Attorneys for the inmates said the administration's policy "poses a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and is an open violation of their fundamental rights." They added: "The withholding of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, from people in prison violates their Constitutional right to serve their sentence free of cruel and unusual punishment."
What comes next
The Supreme Court will decide whether to grant the emergency appeal and allow the BOP to reinstate the policy while litigation continues. If the court does not intervene, the lower-court order blocking the policy remains in place pending further proceedings. Advocates, legal teams and the BOP remain engaged in an ongoing legal battle over the standard of care for transgender people in federal custody.
Help us improve.
