Judge said policy was adopted ‘purely to follow’ executive order

The Bureau of Prisons implemented the policy in February, roughly a year after a presidential executive order directed the attorney general and the bureau to “ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.”

The bureau said it adopted the policy independently of the executive order, citing “the latest scientific information.” According to the bureau, the prior policy had been built on recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which it described as based on “unreliable” information.

Lamberth, however, found that the bureau adopted the policy “purely to follow” the executive order, “ignoring evidence.” He ruled the policy violated federal law as arbitrary and capricious.

In the administration’s appeal, Solicitor General John Sauer wrote that the Bureau of Prisons “independently relied on the lack of scientific support for the efficacy of sex-rejecting interventions.” Sauer argued that the district court “far exceeded its limited and proper role” by “second-guessing BOP’s evaluation of the medical and scientific evidence before the agency.”

A group of transgender inmates sued the administration over the policy. Attorneys representing the inmates said in a statement Monday that they will continue to fight the administration’s policy.

“The lower courts have consistently found the administration’s policy is a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” the statement reads. “The withholding of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, from people in prison violates their Constitutional right to serve their sentence free of cruel and unusual punishment. We will continue to defend the rights of our clients and all incarcerated people.”

The emergency appeal asks the Supreme Court to override the district court’s ruling while the underlying case continues in the lower courts.