Justice Department Urges Supreme Court to Reinstate Ban on Transgender Treatments in Federal Prisons

The Justice Department has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy that halted hormone treatments and social accommodations for transgender inmates. The department is asking the high court to block a lower court's ruling, enabling the federal government to immediately enforce its updated prison policy regarding gender dysphoria.

In its petition filed Monday, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that the BOP's decision to prioritize mental health treatment and discontinue "medically disputed and unproven sex-rejecting interventions" falls within the scope of reasonable decision-making. The BOP issued the new policy in February, prohibiting surgeries for sex transition and discontinuing hormone treatments for inmates not already receiving them. The policy also prohibits social accommodations such as breast padding, binders, makeup, or wigs that do not align with an inmate's biological sex.

This legal action follows a decision by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in June, who ordered the BOP to continue providing care and accommodations for transgender inmates. Lamberth ruled that BOP officials had not offered a sufficient explanation for treating gender dysphoria care differently from other medical conditions. The lower court found that the BOP did not adequately consider its own past practices, which were aligned with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines.

The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court filing, argued that WPATH guidelines are scientifically flawed, biased, and unreliable. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to reinstate the policy during the appeal process.

In their arguments, the DOJ and Sauer contended that courts should grant significant deference to federal prison administrators. They assert that "prison administrators...should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." The department also argued that the lower court's demand for additional evidence is inconsistent with administrative law principles and the deference owed to the BOP.