Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Trans Prison Care Ban

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an emergency appeal from the Trump administration seeking to enforce new restrictions on gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in federal prisons ^[1]. The unsigned order leaves in place a lower court injunction that has prevented the Federal Bureau of Prisons from halting hormone therapy, surgeries, and social accommodations like wigs and binders ^[3]. The policy, introduced after President Trump’s January 2025 executive order declaring only two genders, would have ended medical treatments tied to gender transition while allowing only mental health services ^[2].

The legal battle stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by three transgender inmates in New Jersey, Florida, and Minnesota, supported by the ACLU ^[2]. They argued that cutting off care would cause severe mental health harm, including increased depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation ^[3]. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, ruled the policy lacked evidence and appeared designed to follow the president’s executive order rather than medical necessity ^[5]. He noted the Bureau of Prisons had provided hormone therapy since at least 1992.

The Supreme Court’s decision stands in contrast to several recent rulings favoring the Trump administration on transgender issues, including bans on transgender military service, sports participation, and passport gender markers ^[2]. However, in this case, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have granted the stay, indicating deep division within the conservative majority ^[1]. The court provided no explanation, as is standard for emergency applications.

The case highlights a rare win for transgender rights advocates at the nation’s highest court, despite its 6-3 conservative majority ^[3]. The ACLU and plaintiffs argue the government failed to present medical evidence that the treatments were ineffective or harmful, and no security incidents tied to gender-affirming care have been cited ^[5]. According to, the claim that no documented incidents were linked to gender-affirming care has been reported by only one source and has not been confirmed.

What happens next remains uncertain. The lower court’s injunction remains in place, but the case could still be reviewed on the merits in the future. The story was first reported by New York Post and The Guardian.