Federal judge again blocks Trump from moving trans women into men’s prisons

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has again blocked the Trump administration from transferring transgender women in federal custody into men’s prisons, extending emergency protections in a lawsuit that has become one of the country’s most significant legal fights over the treatment of transgender prisoners under President Donald Trump’s second administration.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth on Tuesday renewed a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Blanche, preventing federal officials from enforcing portions of Executive Order 14168 against the plaintiffs from May 21 through June 8. The order requires the Bureau of Prisons to continue housing the plaintiffs in women’s facilities and maintain their gender dysphoria treatment as it existed before Trump returned to office on January 20, 2025.

The ruling marks the latest turn in a case that began in January 2025 after three transgender women incarcerated in federal prisons sued the administration over Trump’s executive order mandating that the federal government recognize only sex assigned at birth. The order directed the attorney general to ensure that “males are not detained in women’s prisons” and sought to prohibit federal funding for gender-affirming care in custody.

Related: Federal judge blocks Trump’s transfer of transgender women to men’s prisons

The original complaint described plaintiffs who said they had already survived sexual violence, harassment, and trauma in men’s prisons before later being transferred into women’s facilities through individualized Bureau of Prisons assessments. One plaintiff alleged she had been raped in a men’s prison. Another said she faced repeated sexual assaults. A third warned that being transferred into a men’s facility would place her at severe risk of rape and violence.

New filings submitted last week offered additional detailed accounts from several plaintiffs who said they endured rape, physical assaults, and ongoing harassment while incarcerated in men’s facilities.

According to attorneys, a plaintiff identified under the pseudonym Amy said she was violently gang raped and assaulted by three incarcerated men and had been sexually assaulted in every men’s facility where she had been housed, suffering what attorneys described as severe physical and psychological trauma.

Related: Appeals court clears path to move trans women into men’s prisons despite sexual assault risk

Another plaintiff, identified as Carla, said she was targeted because of her feminine appearance and physically assaulted by gang members, suffering multiple injuries. Afterward, she said prison officials placed her in so-called protective custody with a man she described as dangerous despite her objections, where she was assaulted again. Court filings said Carla continued to experience harassment and violence during repeated transfers between men’s facilities.

A third plaintiff, Donna, said she was brutally raped while incarcerated in a men’s prison and later subjected to repeated sexual harassment, groping, and threats from other incarcerated men. According to the filings, men taunted her with statements including, “If you want to be a woman, you can be a woman with me.”

The litigation has steadily expanded. The case now includes numerous transgender women plaintiffs and has been consolidated with related lawsuits challenging the administration’s prison policies.

Lamberth first blocked the policy in February 2025, ruling that forcing the women into men’s prisons likely violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Related: Federal officials force transgender women into men’s prisons despite judge’s ruling against Trump’s order

But the legal battle escalated last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit partially vacated portions of Lamberth’s injunction. The appeals court concluded that transgender women could not rely solely on broad categorical arguments that transfers to men’s prisons are inherently unconstitutional. Instead, the panel said each plaintiff must demonstrate individualized risks of harm.

That ruling alarmed advocates, who warned it opened the door for the Bureau of Prisons to resume transfers while lower courts reconsidered the evidence, plaintiff by plaintiff.

As The Advocate previously reported, transgender women incarcerated in men’s prisons face sharply elevated risks of violence, extortion, sexual abuse, and psychological trauma.

Related: Federal prison inmates can get gender-affirming care as court blocks Trump order

Civil rights lawyers have also alleged that transgender women transferred under Trump’s order were subjected to pat-downs by male guards, denied gender-affirming healthcare, placed in isolation, and stripped of clothing or personal items previously permitted under prison policy.

The latest dispute emerged because the D.C. Circuit’s formal mandate does not issue until June 8, even though the existing injunction was set to expire on Wednesday. Plaintiffs warned the court that without renewed protections, the government could begin carrying out transfers before the district court had an opportunity to reconsider the case under the appellate court’s instructions.

According to Tuesday’s order, the Justice Department would not agree to refrain from transferring the plaintiffs during that interim period. Government attorneys also argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to renew the injunction while the appeal technically remained pending.

Lamberth rejected that argument and canceled an emergency hearing previously scheduled for Wednesday. The renewed injunction preserves existing protections while the next phase of litigation proceeds.