Supreme Court leaves prison-care injunction in place

The Supreme Court on Oct. 21 declined the administration’s emergency request to pause a lower-court injunction blocking the Bureau of Prisons from applying its policy on care for transgender people with gender dysphoria to a covered class in federal custody. The injunction remains in effect subject to its stated duration and any further court action; the justices did not decide whether the policy is lawful.

The order in Trump v. Kingdom, No. 26A416, gives no explanation for the denial. It says Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have granted the administration’s request, but does not state a full vote count.

What the injunction changes for the covered class i

The injunction blocks the Bureau from applying Program Statement 5260.01 to the class. Issued in February 2026, the program statement restricts gender-affirming medical and surgical treatments and social-transition accommodations for people with gender dysphoria in Bureau custody. Reuters reported that psychiatric services remain available under the policy.

For the covered class, the injunction preserves the individualized approach used before Jan. 20, 2025. Bureau medical personnel may provide care when clinically indicated, rather than applying the program statement’s restrictions. That does not mean the Bureau must provide treatment to every class member. The injunction applies to the covered class, not as a general rule for everyone in federal custody.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the preliminary injunction on Aug. 26. The D.C. Circuit declined to pause it on Sept. 18, saying the administration had not shown a strong likelihood of success on whether the program statement was arbitrary and capricious. The appeals court said the Bureau had not adequately considered its experience providing care under the prior policy.

Judge Walker’s dissent attached to the D.C. Circuit’s Sept. 18 order described the Aug. 26 injunction as set to expire 90 days after it was issued. The injunction’s continuing effect is subject to that stated duration and any further court action.

The policy’s legality remains unresolved i

The case is a class-action challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. At the preliminary stage, the district court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on that challenge; that assessment was not a final ruling. In seeking to pause the injunction, the administration cited its medical assessment as well as prison-security and administrative concerns.

Does the Supreme Court’s decision mean the policy was struck down? No. The justices left the preliminary injunction in place but did not rule on the merits of the challenge. The administration’s appeal remains before the D.C. Circuit, and respondents’ Oct. 8 filing said the appeal was to be fully briefed by Dec. 23, 2026.