Federal judges have blocked President Trump’s policy to protect female inmates from biological males in women’s prisons, triggering a powerful legal backlash from 26 Republican attorneys general fighting to restore sanity to prison housing policies.
Key Takeaways
- Twenty-six Republican attorneys general, led by Idaho’s Raúl Labrador, have filed an amicus brief supporting President Trump’s executive order to house prisoners based on biological sex.
- Federal judges have blocked Trump’s directive by issuing temporary restraining orders, citing the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
- The Trump administration policy would prevent transgender-identifying men from being housed in women’s prisons and halt federal funding for transgender surgeries.
- Republican AGs argue that housing male-bodied inmates in female prisons creates substantial safety risks, including privacy violations and increased chances of violence or sexual assault.
- The case has been elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after lower court blockages.
Republican Attorneys General Mount Defense of Trump’s Prison Policy
A coalition of 26 Republican attorneys general is fighting back against judicial interference with President Trump’s executive order that would house prisoners according to their biological sex. Led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, the coalition has filed an amicus brief supporting the President’s January 20, 2025, directive, which federal judges have temporarily blocked. The attorneys general argue that housing transgender-identifying males in women’s prisons creates substantial safety concerns for female inmates, including serious privacy violations and heightened risk of violence or sexual assault.
“Truth matters, and it’s under attack in our culture today. We’re standing up for biological reality, lawful executive authority, and the dignity and safety of women. If government policy or court rulings deny basic truth, it threatens both public trust and the rights of individuals,” said Raúl Labrador, Idaho Attorney General.
The legal battle intensified after Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in office, directing the Bureau of Prisons to house inmates according to their biological sex rather than gender identity. The order also halted federal funding for transgender surgical procedures in prisons. Multiple federal judges responded by issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, effectively blocking implementation of these policies while legal challenges proceed through the courts.
— Jared (@zerofiveniner) July 27, 2024
Court Rulings Create Controversy
A federal district court granted a temporary restraining order on February 4, 2025, preventing the Bureau of Prisons from transferring transgender-identifying biological males from women’s prisons to men’s facilities. The court also mandated continued hormone treatments for these inmates, citing potential constitutional violations. The lawsuit currently impacts 17 transgender-identifying inmates, with approximately 22 others in similar situations nationwide. These judicial interventions have elevated the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“Plaintiffs have straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow if their TRO request is denied. This is so because “a prospective violation of a constitutional right constitutes irreparable injury” Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1998). And this is to say nothing of the substantial harms that plaintiffs have plausibly stated, through affidavit, will follow if the plaintiffs are denied their hormone therapy,” said the Judge.
Republican attorneys general strongly disagree with this judicial reasoning, arguing that housing decisions based on biological reality protect all inmates. They maintain that the federal government has both the authority and responsibility to implement housing policies that preserve safety and dignity in women’s facilities. The legal filing specifically emphasizes that significant policy matters involving social controversies should be decided by elected officials through democratic processes, not through judicial intervention.
March 2, 2025
Justice Department lawyers, confronting an onslaught of legal challenges, have made a case in court that expansive executive power inherent in the Constitution buttresses the lawfulness of President Trump’s aggressive unilateral actions.Outside the courtroom,…— Paul A. Langan (@paul_durhamlang) March 3, 2025
Broader Implications for Women’s Safety
The attorneys general’s brief explicitly states that protecting women’s safety must be a priority in correctional facilities. Their filing notes multiple cases of alleged sexual assaults in state prisons where biological males identifying as transgender were housed with female inmates, pointing to incidents in California and Washington as evidence of the dangers posed by such housing arrangements. The controversy extends beyond adult facilities to potentially impact youth detention centers as well.
“The federal government is charged with preserving the safety of all prisoners in its care, and it has determined that placing transgender-identifying male prisoners in female housing intolerably jeopardizes female prisoners’ well-being,” stated Republican attorneys general.
The attorneys general coalition includes officials from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Their unified stance emphasizes that housing decisions should be based on biological reality rather than gender identity to ensure the safety of all inmates, particularly women in sex-segregated facilities.
