The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to lift a lower court order blocking the Trump administration’s revised restrictions on gender-transition-related medical care and accommodations for federal prison inmates.
In a brief order in Trump v. Kingdom, the justices denied the administration’s request for an emergency stay, meaning the restrictions remain on hold while litigation continues in lower courts.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the stay. The rest of the Court gave no explanation for its decision not to intervene.
How the case began
The dispute traces back to an executive order President Trump signed on his first day in office in January 2025, directing the Federal Bureau of Prisons to stop using federal funds for certain gender-transition-related treatments for inmates.
Three inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria sued over the policy. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction blocking restrictions on hormone therapy and certain accommodations, including clothing and personal items.
Instead of appealing that ruling right away, the Bureau of Prisons issued a revised policy in February 2026, backed by a lengthy explanation and thousands of pages of supporting material. The new version generally barred gender-transition-related surgeries, prohibited inmates from starting hormone therapy for gender dysphoria, called for individualized plans to wind down existing hormone treatment, and eliminated certain appearance-related accommodations.
The Bureau said the revisions were based on its review of medical evidence along with security and administrative concerns specific to prisons.
Court finds policy likely unlawful
Judge Lamberth was not convinced. In June, he ruled that the revised policy was likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to give reasonable explanations for their decisions. He found that the Bureau had failed to adequately account for its own experience under the prior policy, questioned the justification for the changes, and concluded the revised policy appeared aimed at carrying out Trump’s executive order rather than reflecting independent agency judgment.
Lamberth renewed the injunction in August, blocking the revised policy nationwide for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause that injunction in September, leading the administration to ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
Administration’s arguments
The administration argued that the district court had improperly substituted its own judgment for that of federal prison officials, who are typically given broad discretion to manage correctional facilities. The Justice Department also argued, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, that the injunction went further than necessary by blocking restrictions on surgeries even though the inmates’ request for preliminary relief had focused on hormone therapy and accommodations.
The Supreme Court’s denial does not resolve any of those underlying questions. The Court did not rule on whether the Bureau’s revised policy is lawful, whether the district court exceeded its authority, or whether the restrictions may eventually take effect. Because the case remains at the preliminary-relief stage, subject to statutory limits, further proceedings could still affect how long the restrictions stay blocked.
For now, the administration cannot enforce its revised policy against the inmates covered by the injunction.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login