Kingdom v. Trump: classwide injunction restores gender-affirming care in BOP custody; class of 2,000+ certified

OtherCOURT

Date
Actor
Bureau of Prisons (defendant); U.S. District Court, D.D.C. (order)
Agency
Federal court (COURT)
Type
Other (court order constraining implementation)
Section
PRISONS, DETENTION, AND IMMIGRATION (BOP, DHS/ICE, EOIR, ASYLUM)

Summary

In an ACLU-led class action filed March 7, 2025 (D.D.C. 1:25-cv-00691), Judge Lamberth on June 3, 2025 certified a class of all persons in BOP custody diagnosed (now or in the future) with gender dysphoria — more than 2,000 people — and preliminarily enjoined implementation of EO 14168 § 4(c) and BOP's implementing memoranda, requiring BOP to continue hormone therapy and social accommodations (not surgery) under pre-EO policy. BOP's compliance mechanism was a July 16, 2025 joint guidance memo from four BOP divisions restating pre-January 20, 2025 hormone and accommodation practice. The injunction was renewed under the PLRA on August 20 and November 17, 2025 and February 12, 2026; compliance disputes were continuous (roughly 100 noncompliance complaints by January 2026; partial restorations of hormone regimens; a February 17, 2026 report that officers at FCI Butner broke a class member's arm and wrist "while referencing her declarations," after which the court entered a February 19, 2026 anti-retaliation protective order, revised April 16, 2026).

Status

Care protections in effect via the June 17, 2026 updated injunction (below); government appeals pending (D.C. Cir. Nos. 26-5191, 26-5236). (See section 10.) Update, Sept. 23, 2026: On Sept. 18, 2026, a per curiam D.C. Circuit panel (Wilkins, Walker, and Garcia, JJ.) dismissed as moot the government's motion to stay the district court's since-expired June 17, 2026 injunction and denied its motion to stay the district court's (Lamberth, J.) August 26, 2026 reissued injunction against BOP Program Statement 5260.01 (D.C. Cir. Nos. 26-5236 and 26-5310, consolidated), holding the government had not shown a likelihood of success on its arguments that the policy was arbitrary and capricious, that the injunction violated the PLRA, or that classwide relief was improper (Walker, J., dissenting); the clerk was directed to set a merits briefing schedule, and the reissued injunction remains in effect.

As recorded in the data of . Check the sources for anything newer.

Related litigation

Sources