WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge appeared skeptical Tuesday of President Donald Trump’s executive order reversing protections for transgender individuals held in federal prisons, which advocates argue would force them into prisons according to their sex assigned at birth and put them at risk of violence.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee, granted the temporary restraining order Tuesday night, barring the Bureau of Prisons from transferring the three women to a male prison and ensuring they continue receiving medically necessary treatment such as hormone therapy.
The women say in the lawsuit that Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” would strip them of vital legal protections and put them at risk.
According to the women, each using pseudonyms in the legal proceedings, all trans women would be forcefully transferred to men’s facilities and be denied medically necessary gender-affirming health care.
In its brief opposing a temporary restraining order, the Justice Department revealed there are 2,230 transgender inmates housed in Bureau of Prison facilities and halfway houses. Of those, 1,506 are trans women — people who transitioned from male to female — and 724 are trans men. Of the 1,506 trans women inmates, just 16 are housed in female facilities.
Jennifer Levi, attorney from GLAD Law, argued on Tuesday that Trump’s executive order was “predicated on the belief that transgender people don’t exist” and aims to prevent them from functioning in society.
Levi said that following Trump’s order her clients, some of whom had been in prison for years, were suddenly transferred to a “special housing unit” and told they would soon be transferred to a male facility. Upon their transfer they would also lose access to treatments such as hormone therapy.
The three trans women were subsequently returned to their original facilities, which Levi said raises further concerns as to the BOP’s plans.
Justice Department attorney John Robinson argued that Lamberth should dismiss the case because the courts do not have the authority to intervene in the inmates’ upcoming transfers under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
According to the 1996 statute, prisoners must exhaust all potential remedies before bringing an action to federal court, which they had not done here.
Levi argued that exhaustion was futile and should not be a bar for litigation, as the BOP had told her clients they would not consider placement in female prisons whatsoever under Trump’s order.
The lawsuit is one of several that have been filed, both in Washington and around the country, challenging Trump’s broad attacks on transgender individuals, a group he has made a frequent target on the campaign trail and upon taking office.
A coalition of trans young adults, their families and advocacy groups PFLAG National and GLMA filed suit in the U.S. District of Maryland on Tuesday, challenging Trump’s executive order directing agencies to withhold funding for medical providers who offer gender-affirming medical treatments to anyone under 19.
“For decades, doctors and other health professions have followed well-established medical standards that helps transgender youth thrive,” GLMA executive director Alex Sheldon said in a statement. “Now, an extreme political agenda is trying to overrule that expertise, putting young people and their providers in danger.”
An incarcerated trans woman brought a nearly identical suit in the U.S. District of Massachusetts, seeking to block her transfer to a men’s facility where she would also lose access to vital medical treatment. On Jan. 26, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order barring the individual’s transfer and maintaining her treatment access.
A week ago, a group of trans individuals actively serving in the military sued in Washington challenging Trump’s Jan. 27 categorical ban on such individuals serving in the military. The individuals say the order violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, the policy is arbitrary and it lacks a legitimate government interest.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes held a contentious hearing Tuesday to consider whether to issue a temporary restraining order for six transgender soldiers facing potential administrative separation proceedings that would essentially kick them out of the military.
Reyes ordered Tuesday’s hearing after receiving an emergency declaration from Levi, who also represented the trans soldiers, that a trans woman trainee was about to face those separation proceedings and had been reassigned to a male barracks.
Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, expressed doubts that the military ban itself, as well as Trump’s varied executive orders limiting the participation of trans individuals in American society, could stand under Supreme Court precedent finding that actions taken to demean a specific group are unconstitutional.
Justice Department attorney Jean Lin argued that Reyes should not issue any temporary order and instead wait until the Department of Defense issues further guidance. Lin argued the order is not a categorical ban on trans people serving in the military, so long as they abide by the sex assigned to them at birth.
Reyes indicated she had limited space to operate in regard to any order against the military, but said she thought there were constitutional concerns that would allow her to potentially enjoin the order.
“I won’t allow an unconstitutional order to stand, nor will I overstep my bounds,” Reyes said.