Kingdom whipsaw: D.C. Circuit stays the care injunction; district court re-enjoins the policy the same day

OtherCOURT

Date
Actor
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; U.S. District Court, D.D.C.; Bureau of Prisons
Agency
Federal court (COURT)
Type
Other (appellate/district rulings on implementation)
Section
PRISONS, DETENTION, AND IMMIGRATION (BOP, DHS/ICE, EOIR, ASYLUM)

Summary

On June 17, 2026, a 2–1 D.C. Circuit panel (Henderson, Walker; Pillard dissenting) stayed the May 26, 2026 renewed Kingdom injunction as an improper "administrative injunction," finding the government likely to succeed and irreparably harmed by intrusion into executive operations — briefly lifting classwide care protections. Approximately two and a half hours later, Judge Lamberth granted plaintiffs' pending motion for an updated preliminary injunction on the fuller record, again enjoining EO 14168 § 4(c) and PS 5260.01 on APA arbitrary-and-capricious grounds and ordering BOP to halt hormone tapering and restore gender-affirming care classwide. The government appealed June 22 (No. 26-5236); Lamberth denied a stay June 25, 2026.

Status

Updated injunction in effect; appeal pending. BOP compliance remains contested (partial hormone restorations; retaliation allegations under the April 16, 2026 revised protective-order process). (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