Trump asks Supreme Court to let prisons limit transgender inmate care

A federal judge already found the restrictions likely unlawful.

The emergency application in Trump v. Kingdom asks the justices to pause an injunction.

The policy directs clinicians to taper existing hormone prescriptions.

The restrictions would take effect while the legal challenge proceeds.

Treatment for complications from earlier surgeries would remain available.

The policy directs officials, when practicable, to remove binders, wigs, makeup, and breast padding.

The American Medical Association recognizes medical and surgical treatment for gender dysphoria as medically necessary when a patient and physician decide it is.

The Endocrine Society supports access to gender-affirming treatment and publishes hormone-therapy guidelines.

The Advocate said major medical organizations support gender-affirming care for transgender people.

The Advocate said those positions support individualized treatment based on a patient's needs.

The application says some people who had surgery or severe withdrawal effects might keep receiving hormones at first.

In June 2025 Judge Royce Lamberth issued an initial injunction protecting hormone therapy and social accommodations.

The ACLU and its Washington, D.C., affiliate brought the challenge with the Transgender Law Center.

The Transgender Law Center brought the challenge.

The Advocate's March reporting examined the consequences of the bureau's tapering directive.

Judge Royce Lamberth left the prisoners' Eighth Amendment claims unresolved.

In June, Judge Royce Lamberth protected 14 transgender women from transfer after reviewing evidence of the specific dangers they would face.

Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy.

The Justice Department appealed.

The D.C. Circuit said the policy was likely arbitrary and capricious because the bureau had not adequately considered its own experience providing the care.

This year a district court and a federal appeals court in Washington blocked the policy from taking effect in the short term.

The justices are already considering an appeal on removing migrants to third countries without a chance to raise human rights concerns.

Over the summer the court weighed cases on mail ballots, the White House ballroom, and identifying non-citizen voters.

In its 41st emergency application, President Trump urged the justices to lift an order blocking new restrictions on health care for transgender inmates.

A lower court blocked enforcement of a 2026 policy restricting hormone treatment, social accommodations, and surgery.

The Supreme Court recently sided with President Trump on using Social Security data to verify voters' citizenship.

The Supreme Court recently sided with President Trump on continued White House ballroom construction, citing national security concerns.

President Trump made similar security arguments for a 250-foot Independence Arch in Washington.

The 2026 policy departed from prior rules that permitted the treatments.

The January 2025 order claimed to restore biological truth to the federal government.

The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to the emergency application.

The new restrictions would reverse prior procedures that allowed gender-affirming treatment when clinically indicated.

The bureau provided an extensive administrative record and a 43-page memorandum.

Earlier policies had relied on recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

A lower court blocked the change and ordered the Bureau of Prisons to keep offering those treatments.

An Associated Press file photo shows the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington on the morning of Aug. 25, 2026.

President Trump was the lead defendant, and the suit challenged both bureau policy and an Inauguration Day executive order on care for transgender prisoners.