Supreme Court Won't Let Bureau of Prisons Enforce Its Transgender Inmate Care Policy for Now; Thomas and Alito Would Have
In an unsigned order, the justices denied the administration's request to pause a federal judge's injunction while the appeal goes forward. The policy would end hormone therapy, transition surgery and "social accommodations" for federal inmates with gender dysphoria. It is not a ruling on the merits.
The Overview
The facts, straight
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's request to let the Bureau of Prisons enforce a new policy on medical care for inmates with gender dysphoria. A federal judge's order blocking the policy stays in place while the government's appeal moves forward.
The order in Trump v. Kingdom, No. 26A416, is one paragraph on the Court's Wednesday order list. It is unsigned and gives no reasons: "The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the application for stay."
This is an interim order, not a ruling on whether the policy is lawful. It means only that the policy can't take effect while the appeal goes forward.
The policy. In February, BOP issued Program Statement 5260.01, "Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria." The government's appendix to its application includes the policy and BOP's supporting memo. Under it, BOP would:
- keep treating gender dysphoria with mental-health care;
- stop providing sex-trait-modification surgeries;
- start no new inmates on hormones, and put those now receiving them on individual "tapering" plans;
- stop providing "social accommodations" such as makeup and wigs.
The policy followed Executive Order 14168, which President Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025. The order directed the attorney general to 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."
How it got here. Three transgender inmates, Alishea Kingdom, Solo Nichols and Jas Kapule, sued on behalf of a class. They are represented by the ACLU and the Transgender Law Center. The plaintiffs say the policy would cut off treatment for "almost 1,000 people" in BOP custody; the government's filings we reviewed don't give a number.
Senior U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth blocked the policy in a June 17 opinion. He found it likely "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act on three grounds:
- BOP did not adequately consider its own experience providing this care under its prior policy;
- the policy is unreasonable given the evidence before the agency;
- it was "pretextual and reverse engineered" to implement the executive order.
Federal law caps preliminary relief in prison cases at 90 days, so the judge renewed the injunction on Aug. 26. The order bars enforcement of the policy and requires BOP to keep providing care "in accordance with BOP policy and practice in effect immediately prior to the issuance of Executive Order 14168."
On Sept. 18, a divided D.C. Circuit panel denied the government's request for a stay, 2-1. Judges Wilkins and Garcia were in the majority, and Judge Walker dissented. The majority said the government had not shown a strong likelihood of success, noting that "BOP makes claims about the security impact of providing gender-affirming care without addressing whether such issues have occurred." Walker would have granted the stay. In his view, the district court likely lacked authority to keep reissuing 90-day injunctions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
What happens next. The appeal continues in the D.C. Circuit, where the government's opening brief is due Nov. 2 and the plaintiffs' brief Dec. 2, according to the court's briefing schedule. The underlying case in Lamberth's court is also still pending. Under the 90-day limit, the Aug. 26 injunction runs out in late November unless the judge renews it again or makes it final.
The order came two days after Radio Purple covered Monday's order list.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
The plaintiffs and their lawyers say BOP reversed decades of practice without looking at its own record.
"The government asks this Court to overturn a three decades-long status quo," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in their opposition. "Since at least 1992, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ('BOP') has treated people diagnosed with gender dysphoria with hormone therapy." They argue that the administrative record "is silent about BOP's extensive experience providing this care" and "is devoid of any evidence indicating whether BOP healthcare providers found this care effective, ineffective, or harmful to patients."
They also argue the stated reasons were a cover. "That glaring omission, as well as the unreasonableness of its decision, make it clear that the rationales were contrived to support the demand President Trump made in the EO," they wrote.
The suit originally raised Eighth Amendment, equal protection and Rehabilitation Act claims as well. The current injunction, though, rests on the Administrative Procedure Act.
After Wednesday's order, Li Nowlin-Sohl, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, said in a statement: "This is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody." She added: "The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights."
Aditi Shah, a staff attorney at ACLU-D.C., said in the same statement that the ruling "will prevent serious and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and the class while we continue to challenge the government's unlawful efforts to deny medically necessary health care for political reasons."
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
Both sides agree on more than the heat suggests:
- Some care continues either way. Under the policy or the injunction, inmates with gender dysphoria get mental-health treatment, and the policy says it doesn't override what the Eighth Amendment requires.
- The fight is about process as much as medicine. The live question is whether BOP adequately explained a change from its prior practice, not whether the courts will settle the medical debate.
- The facts in dispute are checkable. The D.C. Circuit majority and the plaintiffs say the record doesn't show whether the security problems BOP describes have actually occurred. BOP says its experience and its expert support its concerns. Data on security incidents and patient outcomes would help resolve that.
What's settled for now: the policy can't take effect while the appeal proceeds, and two justices would have let it. What isn't: whether the policy is lawful, whether repeated 90-day injunctions are allowed under the PLRA, and how many inmates are affected. The plaintiffs say almost 1,000.
What to watch:
- the government's D.C. Circuit brief on Nov. 2;
- whether Lamberth renews the injunction again before it lapses in late November;
- whether the case returns to the Supreme Court once the appeals court rules.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The government says the courts are second-guessing prison administrators on medicine and security.
In the application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the district court "contravened the most basic principles of APA review—substituting its own policy judgment for that of the agency, relying on evidence outside the administrative record, and faulting the agency for following presidential directions." He said BOP backed its decision with "a 43-page memorandum explaining its reasoning and a 3200-page administrative record."
On the science, BOP's memo says it "has determined that WPATH's standards of care and other guidelines issued by similar organizations are not reliable or at a minimum, show that medical interventions to address gender dysphoria are highly controversial, medically disputed, and insufficiently proven by appropriate evidence." WPATH is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
On security and fairness, the memo says special treatment "can breed resentment among other inmates, which can lead to violence." It also says that "a transfer of a post-operative male to a female facility will increase the risk of harm of female inmates."
The government also points to the deference courts give prison officials. In his reply, Sauer wrote that the plaintiffs "simply repeat the court's many errors—substituting their own policy judgments and empirical assessments for the agency's, relying on extra-record evidence, and baselessly accusing the agency of acting pretextually."
The government also stresses that inmates won't go untreated. Inmates with gender dysphoria, including the named plaintiffs, will "receive timely, appropriate mental health services," the reply says. And the policy itself says nothing in it "prevents a prison official from providing care required by federal law, including the Eighth Amendment."
Sources & Citations
- Supreme Court of the United States, “Order in Pending Case, Trump v. Kingdom, No. 26A416 (Order List, Oct. 21, 2026)”, October 21, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States, “Docket No. 26A416, Trump v. Kingdom”, October 21, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Application to Stay the Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Solicitor General D. John Sauer)”, September 28, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Appendix to the Application (includes BOP Program Statement 5260.01, BOP's memorandum, district court opinion and orders, D.C. Circuit order)”, September 28, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Respondents' Opposition to Stay Application”, October 8, 2026.
- Supreme Court of the United States (docket filing), “Reply in Support of Application”, October 9, 2026.
- CourtListener, “Kingdom v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00691 (D.D.C.) docket”, October 21, 2026.
- CourtListener (RECAP), “Memorandum Opinion (June 17, 2026), Judge Royce C. Lamberth”, June 17, 2026.
- CourtListener (RECAP), “Order Granting Renewed Preliminary Injunction (Aug. 26, 2026)”, August 26, 2026.
- CourtListener (RECAP), “D.C. Circuit per curiam order denying stay, Nos. 26-5236 and 26-5310 (Sept. 18, 2026)”, September 18, 2026.
- The White House, “Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”, January 20, 2025.
- ACLU, “Supreme Court Denies Trump Administration Request to Withhold Health Care from Incarcerated Transgender People”, October 21, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
