BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA
The U.S. Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow the federal government to enforce a Bureau of Prisons policy that restricts hormone treatments and certain social accommodations for transgender inmates, escalating a legal dispute over the medical care provided to people in federal custody.
In a filing submitted Monday, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to block a lower-court ruling that prevented the Bureau of Prisons from fully implementing the policy. The administration argues that prison officials have broad authority to establish medical and institutional policies intended to maintain security and order inside federal correctional facilities.
The dispute centers on a policy adopted by the Bureau of Prisons in February that significantly changed how federal prisons handle gender dysphoria among inmates.
Under the policy, the Bureau of Prisons prohibited surgeries intended to modify an inmate’s sex characteristics. It also discontinued hormone treatments for inmates who were not already receiving hormone therapy before the policy took effect.
The policy additionally restricted a range of social accommodations associated with gender identity. Among the items affected are breast and buttock padding, chest binders, makeup, wigs and certain undergarments when those items do not correspond with an inmate’s biological sex.
The administration has defended the changes as part of a broader approach that prioritizes mental-health treatment while rejecting what officials describe as medically disputed interventions.
“BOP’s decision to prioritize mental-health treatment, while discontinuing medically disputed and unproven sex-rejecting interventions, falls well within the bounds of reasoned decision-making,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Justice Department’s petition to the Supreme Court.
The legal battle began after federal inmates challenged the administration’s policy and sought to prevent the government from withholding medical treatment and accommodations related to gender dysphoria.
The lawsuit followed an executive order issued by President Donald Trump at the beginning of his second term that directed the federal government to end the use of federal funds for certain medical treatments and procedures for transgender people in federal custody.
The inmates argued that the policy unlawfully interfered with medical care and contradicted the government’s previous approach to treating gender dysphoria.
In June, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the Bureau of Prisons must continue providing certain medical care and accommodations to transgender inmates while the legal challenge proceeded.
Lamberth concluded that prison officials had not adequately explained why treatment for gender dysphoria should be handled differently from other medical conditions. The court also considered the Bureau of Prisons’ previous experience providing care consistent with recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, commonly known as WPATH.
The Justice Department has sharply challenged the reliability of those recommendations. In its Supreme Court filing, the administration argued that WPATH’s treatment guidelines are scientifically flawed, biased and unreliable.
The department is asking the Supreme Court to intervene while the broader legal dispute continues through the lower courts. The administration argues that federal judges should give substantial deference to prison officials when reviewing decisions involving inmate medical care, institutional security and prison administration.
Sauer and other Justice Department attorneys argued that courts should apply what they described as “double deference” to the Bureau of Prisons because prison administrators are responsible for maintaining order and security in correctional facilities.
The Justice Department cited longstanding Supreme Court precedent recognizing that prison officials generally receive considerable latitude when establishing and enforcing policies necessary to maintain institutional discipline and security.
“Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security,” the government argued.
The administration also contends that Lamberth improperly required the Bureau of Prisons to produce additional evidence supporting its policy.
“The court’s demand for additional evidence cannot be reconciled with bedrock principles of administrative law or the double deference that BOP is due in this context,” the Justice Department argued.
The case has continued to move through the federal appeals process. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to revive the Bureau of Prisons policy while the broader appeal proceeds.
That decision left the lower-court order in place for the time being and prompted the Justice Department to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.
The administration’s request puts the justices in the position of potentially deciding whether the Bureau of Prisons can immediately implement its restrictions while the underlying lawsuit continues.
At the center of the dispute is a broader disagreement over the appropriate treatment of transgender inmates experiencing gender dysphoria and the extent to which federal prison officials can determine what medical treatments and personal accommodations are available to people in federal custody.
The administration maintains that prison officials must have significant authority to establish policies based on their assessment of medical evidence, institutional security and prison management. The inmates challenging the policy argue that the government cannot arbitrarily withdraw established medical care and accommodations without sufficient justification.
The Supreme Court’s response could determine whether the February policy takes effect while the litigation continues. It could also influence how much authority federal prison administrators have when changing medical policies affecting transgender inmates.
For now, the underlying lawsuit remains unresolved, and the Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the legality of the Bureau of Prisons policy itself.
Original article
Comments