A federal judge blocked the transfer of twelve transgender women prisoners from women’s facilities to men’s prisons, stating the move would likely violate their constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
At a Glance
- U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s plan to house transgender inmates according to their biological sex
- The ruling maintains current housing and medical care for transgender inmates as they existed before January 20, 2025
- The judge cited potential Eighth Amendment violations, which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment
- The lawsuit argues transgender women would face significantly elevated risks of physical and sexual violence in men’s facilities
- This case represents the first legal challenge to Trump’s Executive Order recognizing only “two sexes”
Federal Court Intervenes in Transgender Inmate Housing Policy
In a significant setback to the Trump administration’s policies regarding transgender inmates, a federal judge in Washington D.C. has temporarily halted plans to move transgender women from women’s prisons to men’s facilities. And the excuse is as nonsensical as you assume it to be.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued the injunction, which prevents the Bureau of Prisons from transferring the inmates and ensures they continue receiving their current medical care. The ruling maintains the status quo that existed before Trump’s January Executive Order directing federal agencies to recognize only biological sex in their policies.
“Pending further Order of this Court, Defendants shall maintain and continue the plaintiff’s housing status and medical care as they existed immediately prior to January 20, 2025,” Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his ruling.
The judge determined there was a “likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim,” which protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishment. This temporary restraining order represents a significant obstacle to the administration’s attempt to implement its transgender policy in federal prisons.
The lawsuit, Jane Doe v. Pamela Bondi, was filed by transgender women currently housed in women’s facilities who were notified they would be transferred to men’s prisons following Trump’s Executive Order. Their legal challenge argues that such transfers would create “a significantly elevated risk of physical and sexual violence,” according to Judge Lamberth’s citation of their claims. The Bureau of Prisons attempted to argue they could provide protective measures in men’s facilities, but the judge found these assurances insufficient.
The court also expressed concern that the Bureau of Prisons’ statistics “do not disaggregate assaults against transgender inmates from overall rates of assault,” making it difficult to assess the actual safety risks these inmates would face. The government claimed they would take measures to “minimize the likelihood that they would be victimized,” but Judge Lamberth found this insufficient given the substantial evidence presented by the plaintiffs about the dangers they would face.
Surely decisions like this can’t stand…
Surely?
