Trump taps SCOTUS in bid to block gender-affirming care for transgender inmates

The Trump administration said it shouldn’t have to provide evidence that gender-affirming healthcare led to security concerns, telling the justices that courts should defer to the experience and expertise of prison officials.WASHINGTON (CN) — President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday for help ending most gender-affirming healthcare for transgender people in federal prisons.In the administration’s 41st emergency application before the high court, Trump urged the justices to lift a lower court order blocking the Federal Bureau of Prisons from imposing new restrictions on health care for transgender inmates. Like other appeals the court has granted, the administration cited security concerns to justify its intervention.“In nullifying BOP’s exercise of its statutorily conferred authority to adopt a policy that prison administrators have determined is necessary to maintain institutional security, the court’s order causes irreparable harm to the government and to the public,” the Trump administration wrote.The Supreme Court recently sided with Trump on using Social Security data to verify voters’ citizenship status, citing the administration’s election security concerns, and on continued construction of a White House ballroom, citing national security concerns. Trump made similar arguments to justify construction of a 250-foot “Independence Arch” in D.C.A lower court blocked the Federal Bureau of Prisons from enforcing a 2026 policy restricting gender-affirming health care, including hormone treatment, social accommodations and surgery, for transgender inmates, in part because the administration lacked evidence that such treatments had previously caused security concerns.But the Bureau of Prisons says the court should have deferred to its experience and expertise in finding that security and prison administration concerns independently justified the 2026 policy, which departed from prior rules permitting such treatments.“To the extent the lower courts’ rulings suggest that BOP had to provide additional factual support for those concerns, that suggestion is misguided,” the Trump administration wrote. “Considerations of ‘institutional security’ are ‘peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in such matters.’”Upon retaking office in January 2025, Trump issued an anti-transgender executive order claiming to restore “biological truth to the federal government.” The Bureau of Prisons subsequently issued a memorandum prohibiting requests for undergarments that do not align with an inmate’s sex assigned at birth and barring funds for any medical procedure, treatment or drug intended to make an inmate’s appearance conform to a gender identity that does not align with their sex assigned at birth.The government argued, however, that the bureau’s 2026 policy was not an extension of changes made to comply with Trump’s 2025 executive order, but reflected the agency’s independent judgment.The lower court rejected that argument, finding the 2026 policy was reverse engineered to implement the executive order, and ordered it put on hold while litigation continued.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay that ruling, arguing transgender inmates would not be harmed by the withdrawal of gender-affirming treatments. The government claimed hormone interventions and social accommodations were “not medically necessary” to treat gender dysphoria.“In any event, any harm to respondents is substantially outweighed by the harm to the government and to the public from forcing BOP to maintain prior policies that it has determined do not ‘align[ ] with the latest scientific information’ or ‘account[ ] for the complex security and administration concerns in the correctional environment,’” the Trump administration wrote.The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to the emergency application.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads