Women win court ruling blocking Trump’s order to house trans women in men’s prisons

A district judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at forcibly de-transitioning transgender female inmates and housing them in male jails and prisons, citing it as a violation of Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. According to The Hill, this ruling is the second recent legal decision favouring trans inmates opposing Trump’s order, affecting all trans inmates nationwide.

U.S.A. District Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s directive following a lawsuit from three trans female inmates facing transfer to a male facility as a result of the order. The women claimed they would “likely to suffer irreparable harm” if the order were enforced, highlighting government reports and regulations indicating that trans inmates face significantly higher risks of physical and sexual violence when housed with those of the opposite gender.

According to ‘LGBTQ Nation’, the plaintiffs argued that being placed in a male prison would worsen their gender dysphoria, as they would be subject to searches by male officers, forced to shower with men, addressed as men, and dress as men. They also submitted an affidavit from a physician detailing the “numerous and severe symptoms” they could encounter if the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) ceased providing medical treatment for their gender dysphoria.

Lamberth noted that neither Trump’s attorney general nor the BOP contested the harms the trans women claimed they would face under the executive order. However, the BOP contended that the judge's ruling was premature, as the inmates had not completed the four-step grievance process involving prison officials, the warden, the BOP regional director, and the BOP’s general counsel.

Lamberth referenced an exception within the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1996, which permits inmates to seek court relief before finishing the process if it's expected to be a “dead end” with no resolution to their issues. In this instance, the trans inmates were unlikely to have their concerns addressed because Trump's order compelled the BOP to de-transition them and relocate them to a male facility without exception.

The BOP also argued that the women lacked standing to sue since their new detainment circumstances hadn’t been defined, such as the security level of their facilities or their medical care under Trump's order. However, Lamberth countered that Trump's order clearly requires the BOP to stop providing gender-affirming care and house the women in a male facility, proving the legitimacy of their concerns.

Lamberth further stated that Trump’s and the BOP’s apprehensions about the women's potential negative impact on others in a women’s prison were “abstract” compared to the tangible harms the trans women would endure if housed with men.

The judge refrained from commenting on whether Trump’s order violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates certain procedures for presidential policy changes, or the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which ensures equal treatment under U.S.A. law.

Represented by the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAD, the women successfully blocked provisions of Trump’s executive order impacting trans inmates, with Lamberth’s restraining order remaining effective nationwide pending the next phase of the case.

This ruling represents the second recent legal defeat for Trump’s transphobic prison order. The first decision, however, only applied to a single trans female inmate who challenged it. Justice Department attorney John Robinson mentioned that government data shows only 16 out of 1,506 trans female inmates are currently housed in women’s facilities within the BOP.