Case: Doe v. McHenry
1:25-cv-00286 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: Jan. 30, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the Trump Administration's implementation of Executive Order (EO) 14168, sections 4(a) and 4(c), banning transgender women from being housed in women's prisons and gender affirming medical care for inmates. The plaintiffs were three transgender women incarcerated in federal prison. The plaintiffs were housed in women’s facilities throughout their incarceration. They had each lived as a woman for many years and had consistently received hormone therapy, deemed medically necessary by their doctors. The plaintiffs had noticeable feminine characteristics from hormone therapy and feminizing surgery. After the Executive Order was issued, the plaintiffs were abruptly removed from the general prison population and placed in a segregated unit, awaiting transfer to a men’s facility. Represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, and law firms (pro bono), the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The complaint alleged that the newly signed EO14168 violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights by ordering their transfer to a men’s prison and banning their access to medically necessary gender-affirming care. The complaint requested a declaration that Sections 4(a) and (c) of the EO violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It also requested the court halt enforcement of Sections 4(a) and 4(c), preserve the plaintiff's current housing and medical treatment, and award nominal damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The case was assigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Section 2 of the Order redefined “sex” narrowly as immutable biological characteristics fixed at conception, thereby denying legal recognition to transgender people. Section 4(a) barred all transgender women from being housed in women’s prisons. Section 4(c) prohibited the use of federal funds for any medical treatment intended to align an inmate’s appearance with their gender identity, effectively banning hormone therapy and gender-affirming care for transgender prisoners.
On January 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their complaint. The complaint alleged that the EO and the defendants’ enforcement of it violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Fifth Amendment was violated because Sections 4(a) and (c) facially discriminated on the basis of sex and transgender status without legitimate justification. The Eighth Amendment (Failure to Protect) was violated because the EO forced the transfer that placed the plaintiffs at a known and substantial risk of sexual violence. Further, plaintiffs were at risk of losing access to hormone therapy and gender-affirming care, which was deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, and put them at risk for serious harm. The EO violated the Rehabilitation Act because it denied reasonable accommodation for a recognized disability (gender dysphoria). Finally, the BOP’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to existing federal regulations without the notice-and-comment procedures, thereby violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
On January 30, 2025, the plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the EO. In this motion, the plaintiffs argued that transfer to a men’s prison would put them at a high risk of physical and sexual assault, and that the cessation of gender affirming care would exacerbate their gender dysphoria and put them at a high risk of self harm or suicidality.
On January 30, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to seal the case and a motion for a protective order. The motion to seal was granted in part and denied in part on January 31; the plaintiffs were allowed to proceed under pseudonyms, and all information that would identify the plaintiffs was ordered to be redacted on the public record and sealed for the court.
On February 3, the case was reassigned to Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
On February 4, the court granted the TRO. The court found that the plaintiffs would face a high risk of sexual and physical assault, as well as worsening physical and mental health if they were transferred to men’s prisons and denied hormone therapy and gender affirming care. It also found that the defendants were aware of this risk, citing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) that allows some transgender women to be housed in women’s because of the risk of assault, and the defendants’ plan to put the plaintiffs in prisons with lower rates of violence. It found that defendants' response to the risk was not reasonable, because, rather than avoid creating risk to the plaintiffs by maintaining the status quo, they planned to create risk to the plaintiffs by transferring them and then attempt to mitigate harm after the fact. It enjoined the defendants from implementing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of the Executive Order against the plaintiffs and required the defendants to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing and medical care as it existed immediately prior to January 20. 763 F.Supp.3d 81. On February 18, the court granted the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, noting that the defendants had provided no new information that would change the conditions under which the TRO was granted. The preliminary injunction also enjoined the defendants from implementing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) and required the defendants to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing and medical care. 2025 WL 596651.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint on February 21, 2025. The first amended complaint added nine plaintiffs, also transgender women incarcerated in women’s prisons. The amended complaint alleged that on February 20, the plaintiffs were told they would be imminently transferred to men’s prisons. The amended complaint requested declaratory judgement, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. On February 21, the plaintiffs also filed expanded motions for preliminary injunction and TRO to include the newly added plaintiffs. The court granted the expanded TRO and preliminary injunction on February 24, 2025.
On February 27, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order, prohibiting defendants or third parties from revealing information that could identify the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and another motion for a TRO on March 14, 2025. The second amended complaint added two plaintiffs, transgender women who were transferred to men’s prisons. The TRO requested that the government transfer the two plaintiffs back to women’s prisons and restore or preserve their access to gender affirming care. On March 18, the plaintiffs motioned to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction and TRO. On March 19, the court allowed the second amended complaint and granted the preliminary injunction and TRO. It ordered the defendants to transfer the two new plaintiffs to women’s prisons and reinstate or continue their gender affirming care.
On April 2, the defendants appealed the preliminary injunctions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court (Case Number 25-5099). On April 25, the district court stayed proceedings while awaiting the appellate court’s decision.
On April 30, the D.C. Circuit consolidated this case with Moe v. Trump and Jones v. Trump and placed the consolidated cases on an expedited briefing schedule. While the appeal proceeded, the district court issued a protective order on April 29. This order superseded the previous protective order, but largely served the same purpose with clearer guidelines on what could be made public and how. On May 12, one plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims without prejudice.
On May 15, the district court renewed the preliminary injunction. To keep things procedurally clear, defendants appealed the renewed preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit on June 4 (Case Number 25-05213), consolidating the new appeal with prior related matters. While the appeal was pending, the district court stayed proceedings and renewed the preliminary injunctions each time they were due to expire (every 90 days under the PLRA. The defendants appealed each renewed preliminary injunction.
On September 10, 2025, the D.C. Circuit filed a per curiam order asking the parties for supplemental briefing addressing whether the district court had the power to renew its preliminary injunctions under the PLRA, and if so, how that would affect the court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. Both parties filed briefing supporting the district court’s authority in renewing its preliminary injunction, and asserting that the district court’s power to renew the preliminary injunction did not affect the D.C. Circuit’s jurisdiction to review the operative injunction.
Another plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim without prejudice on January 23, 2026. On April 7, 2026, a plaintiff passed away and was removed from the case as a party.
On April 17, 2026, the D.C. Circuit court vacated the preliminary injunctions still in effect and remanded the cases for further proceedings. The court dismissed the appeals regarding the expired preliminary injunctions as moot. As to the preliminary injunctions still in effect, the court found that the district court granted the preliminary injunctions based on the argument that transgender women in general must be housed in women's prisons, not the plaintiffs’ actual argument that they, as opposed to transgender women in general, had individual characteristics that require them to be housed in women’s prisons. The court explained that for the preliminary injunctions to stand, the district court must make findings based on the plaintiffs individual characteristics that put them at a high risk of serious harm in a men’s prison to prove the merits of their Eighth Amendment claims, and that it had not yet made those determinations. The case was remanded to the district court for further fact finding as to each individual plaintiff. The mandate was set to issue on June 8, 2026. 172 F.4th 901.
On May 13, 2026, the district court consolidated this case with Moe v. Trump, and Jones v. Trump, with this case as the lead case.
The operative preliminary injunction was set to expire on May 20, 2026. The plaintiffs filed another motion for a preliminary injunction on May 13. Unlike the previous motions for extensions, the defendants opposed this motion, alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction over renewing the preliminary injunction because it was technically still at issue on appeal. On May 19, the court denied the defendants’ argument and granted a preliminary injunction from May 21 to June 8, when the mandate from the appellate court would issue. The court enjoined the defendants from implementing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) against any plaintiff until June 8. The court also ordered a briefing schedule for a new preliminary injunction based on evidence of individual characteristics as required by the appellate court.
On May 21, 2026, the district court sua sponte ordered a stay on the plaintiffs’ challenge to 4(c) of the Executive Order, pending final adjudication of Kingdom v. Trump, a class action case also before Judge Lamberth. In that case, the court issued an injunction enjoining the government from implementing a policy pursuant to section 4(c) that would terminate hormone therapy for transgender inmates.
Between May 21 and June 7, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action submitted various evidence and declarations supporting individualized showings of the risk of imminent harm. The plaintiffs alleged that their individual characteristics placed each of them at a high risk for serious injury if transferred to a men’s prison, and that the defendants knew of and purposefully disregarded that risk.
On June 3, 2026, the defendants notified the court of a preliminary injunction in Fleming v. Rule, a case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that required the transgender women incarcerated in that prison to be housed separately and kept on separate routing and scheduling to avoid crossing paths with cisgender female inmates. On June 5, the Fleming plaintiffs, incarcerated cisgender women, filed a motion to intervene in this consolidated case as defendants, noting that four of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are housed in the same prison as the Fleming intervenors, FMC Carswell. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants in this lawsuit opposed intervention.
On June 7, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from implementing section 4(a) of the Executive Order against the plaintiffs. The court found that each plaintiff provided individualized evidence demonstrating they would likely prevail on their Eighth Amendment claims. The court found that the plaintiffs would be at an increased risk of violence and severely exacerbated gender dysphoria, that the defendants knew of this risk, and that mandating transfer was not a reasonable response to the risk because maintaining the status quo would require less resources than transfer and pose less risk of harm to the plaintiffs. The court made individualized findings for each plaintiff, which were redacted. The court held that its injunction did not conflict with the Fleming injunction because it only enjoined the government from transferring the plaintiffs to men’s prisons and did not require the plaintiffs to be housed alongside or share spaces with cisgender female inmates. Because of the injunction issued in Fleming and the non-conflicting preliminary injunctions in this case, the court did not rule on the motion to intervene. 2026 WL 1642068.
The court ordered the parties to file their formal opposition to the motion to intervene by July 17.
On June 22, the defendants appealed the district court’s June 7 preliminary relief to the D.C. Circuit (Case Number 26-5238).
On June 24, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint under seal.
On July 15, 2026, the defendants notified the court that they anticipated transferring additional plaintiffs to FMC Carswell, the federal women’s medical facility in Fort Worth, Texas that is subject to the preliminary injunction in Fleming v. Rule. The plaintiffs responded the same day with an emergency motion to preserve the status quo. On July 17, both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed their oppositions to the Fleming plaintiffs’ motion to intervene, and five plaintiffs moved to enforce the June 7 preliminary injunction and for a further temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, supported by declarations addressing the anticipated transfers. Also on July 17, the court ordered the plaintiffs to state whether the relief they sought, enjoining the government from transferring transgender women to a segregated housing unit within a women’s facility, was contemplated by the existing complaint. The plaintiffs responded that day, and the defendants replied on July 19.
The court held a hearing on the motion to enforce and motion to intervene on July 29, 2026. On August 12, the court issued an order denying the requested enforcement and injunctive relief. It noted that, pursuant to the injunction in the Fleming case, four plaintiffs in this lawsuit, incarcerated at FMC Carswell, had been transferred to a segregated unit within that prison and that, after additional transfers to the prison, eight plaintiffs in this lawsuit were currently housed in the segregated unit there. In denying the motion to enforce, however, the court explained that neither transfers within FMC Carswell nor transfers to the segregated unit there violated the injunction in this case, which prohibited transfers to men's prisons but did not prevent separate housing within women's prisons. As to the plaintiffs' alternative request for new injunctive relief to obtain the requested relief -- removal from the segregated unit, access to full programming, a bar on future transfers in to the segregated unit -- the court found that it lacked jurisdiction. It reasoned that the requested injunction was of a different character than the ultimate relief sought. That is, the plaintiffs' complaints in this action challenged the provisions in EO 14168 related to transfer to mens' facilities, and focused on the injuries that such transfers would cause; the complaints, and this lawsuit, did not focus on harms or claims related to housing in an isolated unit within a women's prison. The court therefore denied the motion to enforce, and denied as moot the pending motion to retain the status quo.
On August 18, 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of a new preliminary injunction. They asked the court to prohibit the defendants from enforcing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of EO 14168 against any of the plaintiffs for an additional 90 days, and to require the defendants to maintain the plaintiffs’ housing status in women’s facilities and to continue providing medical treatment for gender dysphoria and any medically necessary post-surgical care consistent with the policies in place immediately before January 20, 2025.
On August 21, 2026, the court denied the Fleming Plaintiff-Intervenors' motion to intervene in this lawsuit. It noted that the motion to intervene was filed 16 months after the start of this litigation, after many rounds of injunctive relief, and that the asserted purpose for intervention was weak because the Plaintiff-Intervenors sought only to add additional evidence to arguments already being raised by existing parties. It reasoned that their rights were already being preserved by the lawsuit and preliminary injunction in Fleming, with which this lawsuit has not interfered. Ultimately, it held that because the government was already adequately representing their interest, intervention was not necessary, and risked causing undue delay, complexity, and confusion.
On August 28, the court granted the request for entry of a new preliminary injunction upon expiry of the existing preliminary injunction, for the same reasons as it had granted earlier relief. It prohibited the defendants from implementing Section 4(a) of the Executive Order against the plaintiffs, to maintain and continue housing the plaintiffs in women's prisons, enjoining transfer to mens' facilities. The new preliminary injunction would be in effect for 90 days, and the court noted its intention to schedule a trial for October or November 2026.
On August 28, the defendants filed a notice of appeal as to the new preliminary injunction. (Case No. 26-5311).
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jason Bondurant (7/8/2026)
Clearinghouse (9/3/2026)
Oliver Farnum (2/8/2025)
Emma Vayda (6/26/2025)
Zoe Hayes (10/13/2025)
Related Cases
Jones v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Fleming v. Warden T. Rule, Northern District of Texas (2025)
Moe v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Kingdom v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69593824/parties/doe-v-mchenry/
Austin, Sarah K. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Gerard Joseph
Attorney, Eric Dean
Attorney, Thomas G.
Barta, James A.
Austin, Sarah K. (District of Columbia)
Delgado, Jennifer Fiorica (District of Columbia)
Galvan, Ernest (District of Columbia)
Hattem, Benjamin (District of Columbia)
Hill, Eve L. (District of Columbia)
Janssen, Kara Jane (District of Columbia)
Kraner, Natalie J. (District of Columbia)
Levi, Jennifer (District of Columbia)
Shalom, Alexander (District of Columbia)
Spiegel, Adrienne (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69593824/doe-v-mchenry/
Last updated Sept. 7, 2026, 4:24 a.m.
Docket for: DOE v. MCHENRY
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 30, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintffs are pseudonymous transgender women currently incarcerated in federal prisons
Attorney Organizations:
GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders)
National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Bureau of Prisons
Department of Justice
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00286
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05099
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05213
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05304
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05419
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05066
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05238
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05311
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Doe v. McHenry, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/45986/ (last updated 10/13/2025).