The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Wednesday to shut down a rogue judge’s bid to restore federal prisoners’ access to transgender-related “treatments” and accommodations. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would stop the lower court’s antics.
In its unsigned order, the high court rejected the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause an August ruling by D.C. Senior District Judge Royce Lamberth. The Reagan appointee issued a renewed preliminary injunction blocking the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from its most recent policy cracking down on transgenderism in the federal prison system.
As described by SCOTUSblog, the February 2026 policy is a “successor to a policy that was adopted in February 2025 to implement an executive order” signed by President Trump. That directive instructed the U.S. attorney general to “ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.”
Lamberth — who has a track record of being “among the toughest judges” for sentencing Jan. 6 demonstrators — blocked the administration’s 2025 version of the contested policy in June 2025. BOP said that it enacted its most recent version of the policy “independently” of the president’s executive order.
The D.C. Court of Appeals denied the administration’s emergency request to pause Lamberth’s August injunction on Sept. 18. In its 2-1 ruling, the appellate court argued that the government did not show that it is likely to succeed on the merits and that the BOP “did not adequately consider its own experience providing gender affirming care under its prior policy.”
In his dissent, Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, said he would have granted the administration’s application because it had “established that it is likely to succeed on the merits . . . that it would likely suffer irreparable harm without a stay, and that the balance of equities tips in its favor.”
With nowhere left to turn, the government sought relief at the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the district court did not “meaningfully engag[e] with either BOP’s reasoning or the administrative record.” He further contended that “none of the reasons the court gave for [its] conclusion has merit, and all of them radically depart from the significant deference that BOP is due — under the [Administrative Procedures Act] in general … and in administering prisons in particular.”
The Supreme Court did not provide a reasoning for rejecting the administration’s emergency request. The high court’s refusal to pause Lamberth’s injunction on the policy means that it will remain in effect throughout the course of litigation.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood