D.C. Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunctions Blocking Transfer of Transgender Women to Men’s Prisons

The dispute arose after President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Attorney General to ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons. In response, the Bureau of Prisons prepared to transfer the plaintiffs, who were a small subset of transgender women in federal custody that the Bureau had previously determined should be housed in women’s facilities.

The plaintiffs sued to block the transfers, arguing that incarceration in men’s facilities would expose them to a substantial risk of grave harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief, reasoning that transgender women face an unconstitutional risk of harm in men’s prisons.

On appeal, the plaintiffs disclaimed the district court’s categorical rationale that the Eighth Amendment requires every transgender woman to be housed in a women’s prison. Instead, they urged the court to sustain the injunctions on the narrower ground that the individual plaintiffs possess specific characteristics making them particularly vulnerable to violence, abuse, and psychiatric harm.

The D.C. Circuit held that the existing record did not include findings of fact about the individual plaintiffs’ vulnerabilities or the reasons the Bureau relied on in placing them in women’s facilities. Consequently, the court could not sustain the preliminary injunctions on the plaintiff-specific grounds urged on appeal.

The court also rejected the government’s argument that the Prison Litigation Reform Act barred judicial review of the transfers. It held that 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) does not preclude judicial review of constitutional claims challenging BOP designations.

Regarding the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, the court held that the defendants failed to carry their burden to show that administrative remedies were available to the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the BOP grievance procedure could not provide relief for the mandated transfers or the associated risks, rendering the remedies unavailable under the statute.

Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim and could not establish irreparable harm predicated on a disclaimed theory, the D.C. Circuit vacated the operative preliminary injunctions and remanded the case for further proceedings.