Supreme Court urged to keep block on Trump administration inmate care policy

Lawyers representing a group of transgender inmates in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a lower-court order. The order currently bars the BOP from enforcing a new policy that prevents transgender inmates from obtaining hormone therapy and social accommodations such as makeup, wigs, and padding. The Trump administration asked the justices to step in and block that order, setting up a high-stakes legal battle over prison healthcare.

The policy stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump after his second inauguration directing the attorney general to ensure no federal funds are used for medical procedures, treatments, or drugs meant to conform an inmate’s appearance to the opposite sex. The BOP adopted a policy in February 2026 citing the latest scientific information and deeming prior standards unreliable. Three transgender inmates filed a class action lawsuit in Washington, D.C., leading Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to bar the policy on August 26. A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit later rejected a government request to pause that order.

Inmates’ Legal Arguments

In their Supreme Court filing, the inmates argued that the new policy fails under federal laws governing administrative agencies because the BOP did not provide a reasoned explanation. They noted that the agency’s extensive record is silent about its decades-long experience providing hormone therapy and social accommodations. Furthermore, the brief stated the record lacks evidence on whether healthcare providers found the care effective or harmful.

Health Risks of Withdrawing Care

The inmates warned the justices that withdrawing care will cause significant bodily changes and put class members at serious risk of worsening gender dysphoria. They also face heightened risks of other mental health symptoms, including depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality. The BOP replaced the prior treatment with psychotherapy and psychotropic medications, which the agency’s medical director recognizes treat co-existing conditions rather than gender dysphoria itself.

Government’s Position Before the Court

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the district court improperly substituted its own policy judgment for that of the agency. The government argued the lower court relied on evidence outside the administrative record and failed to give prison administrators the substantial deference they are due.

What This Means for Affected Individuals

While the dispute centers on federal prison inmates, the outcome impacts how federal agencies must justify major shifts in healthcare policies. For people navigating complex administrative rules or agency decisions, keeping detailed records of medical and administrative history is vital. Anyone facing sudden changes to government-provided healthcare should consider consulting an attorney to evaluate whether required federal procedural standards were followed.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 8, 2026.