By: Jordan Schucker
Published: September 8, 2025
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump gutted trans-healthcare in the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) through Executive Order 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (the “Order”).[1] The Order directed all BOP facilities and staff to cease gender-affirming care and prevent Federal funds from being “expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.”[2] This Order radically changed the lives of thousands of federal inmates using gender-affirming resources across the country.[3]
Following the Order, the BOP issued two memoranda to clarify its policies in line with the Trump Administration’s directives.[4] The first, issued on February 21, 2025, prohibited BOP spending on gender-affirming items “that align with transgender ideology,” such as chest binders, gender-affirming clothing, stand-to-pee devices, and hair removal devices.[5] It also required BOP staff to use pronouns that correspond to inmates’ biological sex and suspended the Transgender Executive Council, which guided the care of transgender inmates.[6] The second memorandum, issued on February 28, 2025, directed BOP staff to implement the Order “in a manner consistent with applicable law including the Eighth Amendment,” without providing further clarification on these vague instructions.[7]
Together, the Order and the BOP’s Implementing Memoranda effectively stopped all gender-affirming care previously provided by BOP facilities. After several lawsuits challenging the Order’s effect on care in the BOP, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a victory for the plaintiffs by granting a preliminary injunction to suspend the Order’s enforcement and certifying a class action for transgender inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This victory was limited in scope, but marked a positive step forward for the mental and physical healthcare of over two thousand inmates. Given the temporary nature of this relief, plaintiffs should keep challenging the Executive Order and the BOP’s Implementing Memoranda, as ongoing litigation is crucial to achieving full and lasting protections for transgender inmates.
Current Litigation
Since the Executive Order, organizations across the country have spearheaded litigation on behalf of transgender inmates.[8] Several complaints have resulted in relief for individual plaintiffs, reflected in Moe v. Trump,[9] Doe v. Bondi,[10] Jones v. Bondi,[11] and Doe v. McHenry.[12] In each case, the respective plaintiffs sought—and received—preliminary injunctions preventing their transfer to opposite-gendered facilities as a result of their transgender status.[13] Plaintiffs argued that the BOP policies were illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), violated the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and were unconstitutional under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.[14]
In their respective Orders, Judges Lamberth and O’Toole mainly focused on the plaintiffs’ likely success under the Eighth Amendment. In McHenry, Judge Lamberth recognized that the plaintiff was “confronted with an ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm,’” and prison officials “knowingly or recklessly subject[ed] the plaintiff to such a known risk,” which was sufficient for the Eighth Amendment standard.[15] In the Jones Order, Judge Lamberth similarly concluded that the Transfer Provision, which required all inmates to be moved to a facility consistent with their pre-transition biological sex, “result[ed] in blanket removal of the plaintiffs from their appropriate housing placement with no discretion to place them in any women’s facility,” which also violated the Eighth Amendment.[16] In these Orders, Judge Lamberth’s primary concerns were that the plaintiffs would experience imminent mental and physical harm as a result of the unconstitutional blanket provisions from the Executive Order and the BOP. The Trump Administration and respective Defendants have since appealed the injunctions.[17]
Kingdom v. Trump
Aside from these individual successes, the most widespread victory for transgender inmates came from Kingdom v. Trump,[18] filed in March 2025 by the ACLU, the ACLU of DC, and the Transgender Law Center. The complaint, “filed on behalf of two transgender men and one transgender woman serving sentences in New Jersey, Minnesota, and Florida,” sought a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the BOP Memoranda and a class certification for all transgender inmates experiencing gender dysphoria.[19] Like in Moe, Doe, Jones, and McHenry, the complainants in Kingdom challenged the constitutionality of the Order and BOP policies under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments, as well as claiming violations of the APA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[20]
Complainants argued that BOP’s policies violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, which, according to the ACLU, “federal courts have long held includes the denial of medically-necessary health care, including access to gender-affirming care.”[21] They emphasized the unconstitutionality of the “denial of gender-affirming health care to treat Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs, based on a blanket ban and without any individualized medical determination” under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments.[22] They also argued that the blanket ban violates the Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against inmates with gender dysphoria, and it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by taking arbitrary and capricious agency action against the plaintiffs.[23]
On June 3, 2025, Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction and certified the class of transgender inmates.[24] In his Memorandum Opinion, he emphasized the limited reach of the Kingdom complaint, writing that his order “extend[ed] no further than necessary to correct the harm that requires this preliminary relief,” which involved restoring access to medical hormone therapy and social accommodations for transgender inmates.[25] He also speculated that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the BOP’s Memoranda “violate the APA’s prohibition of arbitrary and capricious agency action” but decided not to rule on the constitutional challenges to the Executive Order.[26]
In his decision, Judge Lamberth focused primarily on the arbitrary nature of the blanket policies and the irreparable harm the plaintiffs would face if he failed to issue a preliminary injunction. Concerning the plaintiffs’ APA claim, Judge Lamberth noted that “a command in an Executive Order does not exempt an agency” from the “arbitrary and capricious” standard all agencies must abide by.[27] By implementing a blanket policy stripping all transgender inmates of gender-affirming resources, the BOP violated the arbitrary and capricious standard. Additionally, Judge Lamberth recognized that, although the plaintiffs had still been receiving some hormone treatment since January 20, their access to these resources was “tenuous.”[28] Without sufficient and consistent access to hormone treatments and other gender-affirming care, he found, the inmates would likely face imminent and severe side effects “ranging from depression and anxiety to suicidal ideation and self-harm.”[29]
Recommendations & Conclusion
Although Executive Order 14168 and the BOP’s subsequent Implementing Memoranda have severely impacted the health and dignity of more than two thousand transgender inmates nationwide, recent legal victories offer hope for the broader LGBTQIA+ community. Litigation efforts, such as those in Moe, Doe, Jones, and McHenry, have achieved some initial success in preventing the BOP from enforcing harmful policies against the plaintiffs; however, the reach of these cases remains limited. In early June 2025, a group of transgender inmates in Kingdom received temporary relief by regaining access to hormones and some social accommodations when Judge Lamberth ruled in their favor. Despite this victory, legal organizations should continue to challenge President Trump’s Executive Order and the BOP’s related policies. By sustaining these legal challenges, advocates not only protect the rights of individual plaintiffs, but also lay the groundwork for broader, systemic change that ensures lasting dignity and humane treatment for all transgender people in federal custody.
[1] Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615, 8617 (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-30/pdf/2025-02090.pdf.
[2] Id.
[3] See Beth Schwartzapfel, Is Trump’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Prisoners Unconstitutional? (June 3, 2025, at 6:00 pm), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/05/22/trans-lawsuit-trump-prisons-order.
[4] Memorandum from the U.S. Dep’t of Just., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Mem. for All Chief Exec. Officers, Feb. 21, 2025, https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/156821.pdf [hereinafter “Feb. 21 Mem.”]; Memorandum from the U.S. Dep’t of Just., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Mem. for Chief Exec. Officers, Feb. 28, 2025, https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/156822.pdf [hereinafter “Feb. 28 Mem.”].
[5] Feb. 21 Mem., supra note 4.
[6] Id.
[7] Feb. 28 Mem., supra note 4.
[8] See Kingdom v. Trump, ACLU (June 13, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/cases/kingdom-v-trump; Federal Judge Temporarily Enjoins Federal Prison Officials from Withholding Health Care From Incarcerated Trans People, ACLU (June 3, 2025 12:27 ET), https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-judge-temporarily-enjoins-federal-prison-officials-from-withholding-health-care-from-incarcerated-trans-people (listing agencies supporting transgender inmate litigation such as the ACLU, the ACLU of DC, the Transgender Law Center, and several cases from GLAD Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights).
[9] Order, Moe v. Trump, No. 25-10195, 2025 WL 438730, at 1-2 (D. Mass. signed Feb. 7, 2025).
[10] Order, Doe v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-286, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35007, at *2 (D.D.C. signed Feb. 24, 2025).
[11] Order, Jones v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-401, 2025 WL 923755, at 2-3 (D.D.C. signed Mar. 3, 2025).
[12] Order, Doe v. McHenry, No. 1:25-cv-286, 763 F.Supp.3d 81, 90 (D.D.C. signed Feb. 4, 2025).
[13] Doe, Joes, and Moe v. Bondi, GLAD L., https://www.gladlaw.org/cases/doe-jones-and-moe-v-bondi/ (last visited July 9, 2025).
[14] Id.
[15] Order, McHenry, 763 F.Supp.3d at 88.
[16] Order, Jones, 2025 WL 923755, at 3.
[17] GLAD L., supra note 13.
[18] Memorandum Opinion, Kingdom v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-691-RCL, 2025 WL 1568238 (D.D.C. signed June 3, 2025).
[19] Kingdom v. Trump: Summary, ACLU (last updated June 13, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/cases/kingdom-v-trump#legal-documents; Complaint at 3-4, Kingdom v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00691, 2025 WL 776307, at ¶¶11, 15 (D.D.C. filed March 7, 2025).
[20] Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-96, 706 (1946); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).
[21] Kingdom, ACLU, supra note 8.
[22] Complaint at 3, Kingdom, 2025 WL 776307, at ¶10 (arguing that by refusing to evaluate inmates’ needs on an individual basis, the blanket ban on gender-affirming care violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment).
[23] Id. at ¶¶123, 134.
[24] See Memorandum Opinion at 7, Kingdom v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-691-RCL, 2025 WL 1568238, at 3 (D.D.C. signed June 3, 2025) (defining the certified class as those “who are or will be incarcerated in the custody of the BOP who are or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.”)
[25] GLAD L., supra note 16.
[26] See Memorandum Opinion at 17, Kingdom, 2025 WL 1568238, at 9 (explaining that, in addition to violating the APA, the BOP policies might also be constrained by the Eighth Amendment, but that “that is a matter better left for another day—whether that be a later stage of litigation, or another case entirely”).
[27] Id. at 20-21 (quoting Louisiana v. Biden, 622 F.Supp.3d 267, 294–95 (E.D. La. 2022)).
[28] Id. at 24.
[29] Id. at 24-25.