S.D., et al. v. Reese, et al.

9th Cir. · 26-4872 · 2026 · CourtListener

Cite as S.D. v. Reese, No. 26-4872 (9th Cir. filed July 30, 2026)

Circuit9th Cir.Prisons & detention

Docket

No. 26-4872

Date filed: 2026-07-30
Last filing: 2026-10-02

Proceedings

9th Cir. · No. 26-4872 · Docket on CourtListener

28 docket entries · 10 documents

S.D. v. Reese, No. 26-4872 (9th Cir. filed July 30, 2026)

Recent docket activity

From the case's dockets as the archive holds them; each docket page lists every entry.

Show 1 more

2026-08-27 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED to Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG. Audio and video recordings of the argument are available on the court’s website at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/. [COURT UPDATE: due to clerical error, argued and submitted entry was not entered onto the docket after the 8/27/2026 oral argument; updating docket for completeness and for statistics]. [Entered: 10/01/2026 12:00 PM]#26

Filings on file (10 in 10 docket entries)

Filings on file
Date	No.	Document	Type	Pages	Source
2026-07-31	3	Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 07/31/2026 03:38 PM]	Filing	33	PDF CL
2026-07-31	4	MOTION to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings/Order/Judgment filed by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Court entered filing, PDF from DE 3] [Entered: 07/31/2026 03:52 PM]	Filing	33	PDF CL
2026-08-01	5	ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG. The court has received Defendants-Appellants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which includes a request for “an immediate administrative stay” of the district court’s preliminary injunction and of further proceedings in the district court pending full review of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The request for a temporary administrative stay is GRANTED. An administrative stay is intended to “minimize harm while an appellate court deliberates” and lasts “no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for stay pending appeal.” United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). An administrative stay “does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). We “defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay pending appeal is considered.” Nat’l Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). Here, an administrative stay is appropriate to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the district court’s amended order on preliminary injunction (D.Ct. Dkt. 66), and further proceedings in the district court, are stayed pending further order of this court. The court orders expedited briefing for the emergency motion for stay. The response is due August 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The optional reply is due August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The court expedites briefing for the appeal. The opening brief is due August 10, 2026. The answering brief is due August 20, 2026. The optional reply brief is due August 26, 2026. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional and compelling circumstances. Oral argument on the merits will be held in Pasadena and will be set by separate order. [Entered: 08/01/2026 05:22 PM]	Filing	2	PDF CL
2026-08-03	6	[FILED IN ERROR; DUPLICATIVE OF DOCKET ENTRY NO. 5]: ORDER FILED. COLLINS, VANDYKE, and TUNG, Circuit Judges: The court has received Defendants-Appellants’ emergency motion for stay pending appeal, which includes a request for “an immediate administrative stay” of the district court’s preliminary injunction and of further proceedings in the district court pending full review of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The request for a temporary administrative stay is GRANTED. An administrative stay is intended to “minimize harm while an appellate court deliberates” and lasts “no longer than necessary to make an intelligent decision on the motion for stay pending appeal.” United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798-99 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). An administrative stay “does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.” Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). We “defer weighing the Nken factors until the motion for stay pending appeal is considered.” Nat’l Urb. League v. Ross, 977 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). Here, an administrative stay is appropriate to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, the district court’s amended order on preliminary injunction (D.Ct. Dkt. 66), and further proceedings in the district court, are stayed pending further order of this court. The court orders expedited briefing for the emergency motion for stay. The response is due August 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The optional reply is due August 7, 2026 at 5:00 PM PDT. The court expedites briefing for the appeal. The opening brief is due August 10, 2026. The answering brief is due August 20, 2026. The optional reply brief is due August 26, 2026. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional and compelling circumstances. Oral argument on the merits will be held in Pasadena and will be set by separate order. [COURT UPDATE: noted that order is duplicative of DE 5 and resent NDA] [Entered: 08/03/2026 09:08 AM] [Edited: 08/03/2026 01:54 PM]	Filing	2	PDF CL
2026-08-10	13	OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Mike Reese, Appellant Ryan LeGore, Appellant Mark Nooth, Appellant Erin Reyes, Appellant State of Oregon, Appellant Jeremy Wagner. [Entered: 08/10/2026 04:41 PM]	Filing	60	PDF CL
2026-08-20	16	ORDER FILED. Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG The district court here granted a mandatory injunction that required the State of Oregon to “[i]mmediately end the categorical housing of transgender women in men’s [prison] facilities” and (among other things) to apply “a presumption of placement consistent with each person’s gender identity, absent a documented and articulable security justification.” Amended Order on Prelim. Inj., D.Ct. Dkt. 66, at 2. The State asks us to stay that injunction pending the State’s appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we grant the stay.....We also grant a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal. The district court has already ordered Defendants to produce information relating to the members of the class that it certified. See D.Ct. Dkt. 69. But because Plaintiffs “are unlikely to succeed” on the merits and it is thus likely that “the provisional class was improperly granted,” Dickinson, 174 F.4th at 650, such discovery is not warranted, and we therefore stay the district court proceedings pending appeal. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IS GRANTED. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [Entered: 08/20/2026 02:01 PM]	Filing	14	PDF CL
2026-08-20	17	ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F..--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF (corrected cover page) attached as of 8/27/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 08/20/2026 03:32 PM] [Edited: 08/27/2026 08:31 AM]	Filing	69	PDF CL
2026-09-17	23	Main document not on file

	23-1	OPINION (Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION VACATED; CLASS DECERTIFIED; CASE REMANDED; MANDATE ISSUED FORTHWITH. Opinion by Judge Tung. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [Entered: 09/17/2026 09:42 AM]	Opinion	18	PDF CL
2026-09-17	24	MANDATE ISSUED Daniel P. COLLINS, Lawrence VANDYKE, Eric C. TUNG. The judgment of this Court, entered 9/17/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 09/17/2026 10:27 AM]	Filing	1	PDF CL
2026-10-01	27	MOTION to Extend Time to File Petition for Rehearing filed by Appellee S.D., Appellee J.F.. [Entered: 10/01/2026 02:25 PM]	Filing	6	PDF CL

Browse and search the 10 court documents in the archive for this case.

Litigation

Court cases about transgender and other LGBTQ+ people · federal & state courts

Cases tracked

Case name Court Level Issue / type Circuit Outcome Year ≥ Year ≤

loading…

Case	Court	Level	Cir.	Year	Issue / type	Outcome	Docs

Every case in the corpus. Click a case name for its overview; click any column to sort, again to reverse. Each case has one main issue and may raise others (shown as "also…"); the Issue filter finds a case by either. Issues were checked case by case in September 2026. Level, circuit and outcome come from the coded caselaw dataset, so some rows are blank where a case hasn't been coded yet.

Archive stats

Group by

Direct counts from the archive index — instant and exact. Counts are FILINGS (docket entries); the distinct-case figure is shown alongside.

Cases by issue

Every tracked case once, under its main issue, split by the coded direction of its final ruling (the same reading as "Reached a final ruling" below): favorable or adverse to the LGBTQ-rights claim, or mixed. The empty part of each bar is cases with no coded ruling at the trial, circuit or Supreme Court stage yet, which is most of them; it is not a claim that they have no outcome. Choose a bar to list its cases.

Loading…

Reached a final ruling

The coded direction at the HIGHEST stage a case reached — trial-level, circuit-court or Supreme Court only. A preliminary-injunction ruling never counts as final, and a "procedural, no direction" or "unclear" coding is excluded rather than shown as an outcome.

Loading…

Case duration

Filed to terminated, from real CourtListener docket dates, among cases where EVERY tracked docket has terminated (an open appellate docket alongside a closed district one is pending, not resolved). No stage-by-stage date exists in this corpus, so only this one span is shown; dates cover only the tracked-docket tier — see the coverage note below the numbers.

Loading…

Cases by circuit

A real geographic map, states shaded by their circuit's case count relative to the busiest circuit (linear). The Federal Circuit has no state territory of its own (its jurisdiction is subject matter, not geography) and so never paints here, but still appears in the list and the table. Select a circuit below for its final-ruling mix.

Table view (stages, durations and circuits)

Expert witnesses

Filter Appears in

A curated roster of the recurring expert witnesses in this litigation, with every declaration, expert report, affidavit, deposition and trial-testimony document the corpus holds for each, grouped by case. Coverage is limited by what has been pulled: expert material is heavily attachment-borne, so a witness who testified in ten cases may show fewer here, and some documents are marked in a larger filing — the testimony sits inside an appendix or exhibit set rather than as its own entry.

Judges

Filter Appointed by Coded rulings

The record counts how the judge voted, not how the case came out. Dissents and concurrences are parsed from the opinions themselves ("NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting"), so a judge who dissented is scored against the panel's result — without that, Judge Niemeyer read 4–3 favorable to trans claimants. Partial dissents are shown but left out of the tally. Votes come from separate-writing headings and from the opinion's own joinder block ("Judge Richardson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson, Judge Niemeyer… joined"), so a judge who joins a dissent without writing one still counts. Judges are resolved to real people against the Federal Judicial Center directory using the deciding court — there are 32 federal judges named Smith, and two Judge Pryors on the Eleventh Circuit. 195 ambiguous name/court pairs were dropped rather than merged, and a case with no opinion text in the corpus keeps the panel result for want of anything better. Small numbers are small numbers: three rulings is not a tendency.