WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, leaving in place a lower court’s decision to block a policy that would have ended hormone treatments and other gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in federal prisons.
The justices issued a one-line order without explanation, rejecting the administration’s request to lift an injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, indicating they would have allowed the policy to take effect. The decision maintains the status quo, preserving medical care for transgender prisoners while the legal dispute continues.
Core Facts of the Ruling
- The Supreme Court refused to grant a stay on Lamberth’s June 2026 injunction, which blocked the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from enforcing a policy restricting gender-affirming treatments.
- The administration had sought an emergency stay to immediately implement the policy, arguing it was necessary for institutional security, but the Court declined to intervene.
Policy Background and Legal Context
The Trump administration’s policy, issued via executive order in early 2026, directed the BOP to halt surgeries, taper hormone therapy, and eliminate social accommodations such as makeup or wigs for transgender inmates. The policy cited concerns over security risks and cost efficiency, though the administration did not provide detailed evidence linking hormone therapy to security threats.
Lambert’s ruling, upheld by a divided D.C. Circuit panel, found that the BOP lacked sufficient justification under the Administrative Procedure Act to abruptly reverse a policy in place since 1992. The judge emphasized that untreated gender dysphoria can lead to severe mental health consequences, including depression and suicidal ideation, and noted that the BOP’s own medical staff had deemed hormone therapy medically appropriate.
Scope of the Policy and Affected Inmates
The ACLU, which represents transgender inmates in the case, estimates that over 2,000 transgender people are incarcerated in federal prisons, with approximately 1,000 diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Of those, roughly 800 were receiving hormone therapy prior to the policy change. The BOP stopped publishing disaggregated data on transgender inmates after 2025, limiting public transparency on the policy’s impact.
Ongoing Legal Battle
The Supreme Court’s order does not resolve the underlying merits of the case, leaving the legal battle unresolved. The administration may continue to pursue appeals, while advocates argue that the policy violates constitutional protections and medical standards. The case, Kingdom v. Trump, remains active in the lower courts, with no timeline set for a final ruling.
Historical Precedent
Federal prisons have provided hormone therapy to inmates with gender dysphoria since 1992, reflecting a long-standing medical consensus on the treatment’s necessity. The Trump administration’s policy marked a significant departure from this approach, prompting legal challenges from civil rights organizations and affected inmates.
Reactions and Perspectives
Supporters of the policy, including the Trump administration, frame the restrictions as a necessary measure to reduce costs and mitigate potential security risks in federal facilities. Opponents, including the ACLU and medical experts, argue that the policy endangers inmate health and violates constitutional rights by denying medically necessary care. Legal analysts note that the Supreme Court’s decision to deny the stay does not indicate agreement with the lower court’s reasoning, only that the administration failed to meet the high bar for an emergency intervention.