Janiah Monroe, Marilyn Melendez, Lydia Heléna Vision, Sora Kuykendall, and Sasha Reed, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Steven Bowman, Melvin Hinton, and Latoya Hughes

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Defendants’ motion to stay a September 2025 preliminary injunction pending appeal. The injunction required measures concerning the transfer, placement, treatment, and monitoring of transgender inmates with gender dysphoria housed at Menard Correctional Center. The Court concluded that Defendants had not shown a likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm, while a stay would substantially injure Plaintiffs and disserve the public interest.

Holdings

1. Defendants failed to make the strong showing of likely success on the merits required for a stay pending appeal. Their arguments concerning the specificity, scope, tailoring, and evidentiary basis of the injunction had largely been previously considered and rejected, and the challenged relief was sufficiently connected to the constitutional harms found at Menard.
2. Defendants did not establish irreparable harm based on the burden of preparing for an evidentiary hearing, litigating the appeal, or complying with the injunction.
3. A stay would substantially harm plaintiffs, and the public interest favored enforcement of the injunction rather than a stay.
4. Defendants were not entitled to stay related actions, evidentiary hearings, or other proceedings pending appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their interlocutory appeal sufficient to justify staying portions of the September 12, 2025 preliminary injunction.
2. Whether defendants would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay based on the burdens of further litigation and compliance with the injunction.
3. Whether staying the injunction would substantially injure plaintiffs and whether the public interest favored a stay.
4. Whether the district court should stay related proceedings and evidentiary hearings during the appeal.

Disposition

denied