A federal judge on Wednesday considered whether the Trump administration can move forward with a new Bureau of Prisons policy designed to phase out taxpayer-funded transgender drugs for federal inmates.
During a hearing in Washington, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, repeatedly pressed the Justice Department over whether BOP’s ultimate goal is to remove inmates from cross-sex hormones entirely.
“So the goal is to eventually taper even post-surgery patients totally off?” Lamberth asked at one point.
DOJ attorney M. Jared Littman argued the policy is not a categorical ban because inmates receive “individualized tapering plans” and case-by-case review.
“The only categorical thing going on [is] the categorical relief that plaintiffs seek,” Littman argued, arguing inmates must bring individualized Eighth Amendment claims rather than attempt to block the policy entirely through a class-action suit.
The hearing marked the latest stage in Kingdom v. Trump, a class-action lawsuit brought by transgender inmates challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order, which directs federal agencies to stop spending taxpayer funds on surgeries and drugs intended to help prisoners “conform” to the opposite sex. The injunctive relief offered by the judge so far, which applies classwide, effectively requires the Bureau of Prisons to maintain Biden administration-era transgender accommodation policies.
On Tuesday, Lamberth temporarily renewed an existing injunction blocking enforcement of portions of Trump’s executive order restricting transgender prison treatments while he considers the inmates’ request for an updated preliminary injunction.
Led in part by the American Civil Liberties Union, the litigation has become one of the administration’s most closely followed prison-policy fights, partly because the class includes violent offenders and gang members seeking continued access to taxpayer-funded hormone drugs and transgender accommodations. There are around 600 inmates across federal prisons who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, according to federal prison data.
Notably, among the inmates attempting to secure protections under the lawsuit is convicted MS-13 associate Oscar Contreras Aguilar, who was convicted in connection with the 2016 murder of a 14-year-old boy in Virginia and now identifies as a transgender woman while incarcerated in federal prison, the Washington Examiner previously reported.
The lawsuit has also roped in debate over the bureau’s February 2026 policy, which the government contends has replaced earlier guidance issued under an executive order that Lamberth initially enjoined last June. Under the updated federal prison guidelines, the agency bars sex reassignment surgeries and social accommodations while generally requiring inmates currently receiving cross-sex hormones to taper off treatment over time.
The government argued in a May 13 memorandum that the BOP policy followed an extensive review of medical studies, prison-security concerns, and debates surrounding gender dysphoria treatment. The filing said prison officials concluded that psychotherapy, trauma treatment, and psychotropic medications were safer and more appropriate approaches in the prison setting.
Michael Perloff, representing the class of transgender inmates, argued Wednesday that the policy is effectively a blanket ban because every inmate receiving hormone therapy is still expected to stop treatment eventually.
“The policy categorically intends to get everyone off hormone therapies we’re currently on,” Perloff said.
Perloff argued the individualized tapering plans discussed by the government merely manage withdrawal symptoms rather than allow doctors to determine on an individualized basis whether hormone therapy remains medically necessary for a particular inmate.
The hearing arrives just days after Lamberth, who is presiding over a separate lawsuit involving housing for transgender inmates, renewed an injunction blocking the Trump administration from transferring biological men who identify as women into men’s prisons on May 20. That case is known as Doe v. Blanche.
In that case, plaintiffs saw a setback in one of their core legal arguments after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on April 17 that transgender-identifying inmates cannot rely solely on broad categorical arguments. Instead, the appeals court found they must show individualized risks of harm, a theme Littman repeatedly invoked during Wednesday’s hearing over the government’s bid to cease transgender operations and treatments in prisons.
At the close of Wednesday’s hearing, Lamberth said he would move quickly, but did not indicate when he would issue his order.
“I’m going to decide this as promptly as I can,” the judge said.