DINMAG

Developing story

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to let the Federal Bureau of Prisons restrict gender-affirming health care while a major class-action lawsuit proceeds.

The emergency application, filed September 28, seeks to freeze an order from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. That order requires the bureau to continue providing care including hormone therapy to federal prisoners diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

The disputed policy would halt hormone treatment, surgeries, and social accommodations such as gender-affirming clothing or grooming items. Mental-health treatment would remain available.

What the courts have said

Lamberth concluded that the bureau’s policy was likely arbitrary and capricious under federal administrative law. His ruling noted that the government did not dispute that gender dysphoria can produce severe consequences, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

The D.C. Circuit subsequently declined to suspend the injunction. That sent the administration to the Supreme Court, where it argues the bureau properly reconsidered its medical and security policies and that the lower court interfered too deeply in prison administration.

The plaintiffs are three transgender prisoners: Alishea Kingdom, Solo Nichols, and Jas Kapule. The ACLU says the broader class could encompass roughly 2,000 transgender people in federal custody. According to the Associated Press, the bureau reported providing hormone therapy to more than 600 incarcerated people in 2025.

Attorneys for the prisoners argue that abruptly withholding prescribed care can violate both federal administrative law and constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Why this case matters

Incarcerated people cannot independently choose doctors, pharmacies, or health systems. The government controls virtually every part of their medical access, making court orders unusually consequential.

The Supreme Court’s immediate task is not to issue a final judgment on the policy’s legality. It must decide whether the restrictions can operate while the appeal continues. But even a temporary order could determine whether hundreds of people keep receiving established treatment during months of litigation.

The Court has not announced when it will act.