By The Daily Caller (U.S.) | Created at 2026-09-28 17:16:38 | Updated at 2026-09-29 04:15:48
11 hours ago
The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Supreme Court Monday to reinstate the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy, stemming from President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting transgender surgeries and procedures in federal prisons.
The DOJ filed an emergency appeal after a district court issued an order that prevented Trump’s policy from being enforced in federal prisons. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued an order blocking the policy, requiring the BOP to continue providing sex change operations, hormone replacement therapy, and other medical accommodations for transgender inmates. (RELATED: Classic American Town Hosts Soft Core Smut Drag And Burlesque Show With Kids Present)
“This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts,” Trump’s executive order reads.
“Invalidating the true and biological category of ‘woman’ improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.”
Following Trump’s executive order in January 2025, the BOP issued a new policy ending transgender sex change surgeries, hormone therapy, and other social treatments like chest binders, wigs, makeup, and breast padding.
These policies were blocked in June by Judge Lamberth, and the BOP was ordered to continue providing these treatments to transgender inmates. (RELATED: Troy Jackson Backed Trans Prison Policy — Female Inmate Says Convicted Killer Threatened To Rape Her)
“BOP’s decision to prioritize mental-health treatment, while discontinuing medically disputed and unproven sex-rejecting interventions, falls well within the bounds of reasoned decisionmaking,” the filing reads.
“The court reached a contrary conclusion only by disregarding fundamental principles of APA review — relying on evidence outside the administrative record and substituting its own policy judgment for that of the agency.”
