Summary
The document concerns transgender women in federal custody who seek injunctive relief against transfer to men's facilities. It discusses appellate instructions requiring individualized findings regarding each plaintiff's vulnerabilities and a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction supported by individualized evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether individualized evidence demonstrated that transferring each plaintiff to a men's federal prison facility would create a substantial risk of serious harm under the Eighth Amendment.
- Whether the existing preliminary injunction should be continued while the appellate mandate was pending.
Key quotations
“While acknowledging that the record "contains ample, uncontested evidence" of characteristics that could niake Plaintiffs "distinctively vulnerable to harm in men's facilities," the Circuit held that it could not conclude that the Bureau had been deliberately indifferent to such harm without individualized findings as to each Plaintiffs' particular vulnerabilities.” (at 917)
“Although this Court had "generally identified" certain "distinctive characteristics" that could cause a transgender woman to face "substantial risks of serious harm" upon transfer to a men's prison, the Circuit directed the Court on remand to make factual determinations as to the features of the Doe Plaintiffs "in particular" that "render their transfer to men's facilities unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment."” (at 910, 917)
Factual background
The plaintiffs are transgender women in the Bureau of Prisons' custody whose placement in men's facilities allegedly presents substantial risks of serious harm. The record referenced by the appellate court included characteristics such as long-term hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgeries, prior sexual assault or self-harm in men's facilities, and combinations of those factors. Plaintiffs submitted individualized evidence concerning the risks that transfer would pose to each of them.
Procedural history
The District Court had previously entered injunctive relief concerning the housing of transgender women in federal custody. On appeal, the Circuit held that the record did not support a finding of deliberate indifference without individualized findings concerning each plaintiff's particular vulnerabilities, and remanded for factual determinations regarding whether transfer to men's facilities would violate the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs renewed their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on May 13, 2026, submitting individualized evidence; the motion became ripe on June 6, 2026. The Court had also temporarily renewed the existing preliminary injunction from May 21 through June 8, 2026, while the appellate mandate was pending.
Remand instructions
The appellate court directed the District Court to make individualized factual determinations regarding the characteristics of each plaintiff that could render transfer to a men's facility unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.