The dispute arose after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Attorney General to ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons. The Federal Bureau of Prisons prepared to transfer the plaintiffs, a subset of transgender women the Bureau had previously determined should be housed in women’s facilities, to men’s institutions.
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 did not defend the district court’s categorical reasoning. Instead, they urged the D.C. Circuit 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 in men’s prisons.
The D.C. Circuit held that the existing record lacked findings of fact regarding the individual plaintiffs’ vulnerabilities or the reasons the Bureau relied on when placing them in women’s facilities. Consequently, the court could not sustain the injunctions on the plaintiff-specific grounds urged by the appellees.
The court vacated the operative preliminary injunctions and remanded the case for further proceedings. The district court remains free to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief on those or other grounds, provided such relief is supported by further findings of fact and analysis.
The opinion was filed by Circuit Judge Pillard, with Senior Circuit Judge Randolph filing a dissenting opinion. The case was consolidated with several other appeals challenging the same policy.