Case: Jones v. Trump
1:25-cv-00401 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: Feb. 10, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the second Trump Administration's Executive Order 14168 (“Executive Order”), which mandated the transfer of transgender women incarcerated in federal women’s prisons to men’s facilities and denied access to gender-affirming care.
On February 10, 2025, an adult transgender woman incarcerated in a women’s federal prison filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald Trump in his official capacity, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and private counsel, the plaintiff alleged that she was removed from her minimum-security facility, deprived access to her belongings, and placed in the Secure Housing Unit (SHU) within the men’s prison, which she described in her complaint as a “shoebox.” The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168 and require defendants to maintain the plaintiff’s housing and medical treatment consistent with the status quo before January 20, 2025; the plaintiff also sought attorney's fees and other expenses. The case was assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg.
On February 13, 2025, the plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym was granted. 2025 WL 485419.
On February 21, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Defendants from enforcing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168 and to maintain her housing and medical treatment consistent with the status quo before the EO.
On February 24, 2025, the plaintiff's motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction were granted. The court ordered that "the defendants shall maintain and continue the plaintiff's housing status and medical care as they existed immediately prior to January 20, 2025." 2025 WL 923117.
On February 28, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding four more transgender inmates as plaintiffs. Also on February 28, the plaintiff filed another motion for TRO and PI, requesting relief for the additional plaintiffs. On March 3, 2025, the court granted this motion, holding that these plaintiffs’ housing statuses and medical care would be maintained as it existed immediately prior to January 20, 2025. 2025 WL 923755.
On April 2, 2025, the defendants appealed the February 24 and March 3rd orders as to the TRO and Preliminary Injunction to the DC Circuit (Docket No. 25-5101).
On April 30, the D.C. Circuit consolidated this case with two related cases also heard by District Judge Lamberth, Doe v. McHenry and Moe v. Trump, and placed the consolidated cases on an expedited briefing schedule. On May 13, in the district court, all proceedings except those regarding preliminary injunctions were stayed until a decision was reached on appeal.
On May 16, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to renew the PI for an additional 90 days, from May 25 through August 23. The court granted the motion and ordered that defendants be enjoined during that period from enforcing Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168 against the plaintiffs. The court further ordered that defendants maintain plaintiffs' housing placements in women's facilities and continue providing treatment for gender dysphoria. The defendants appealed the renewed preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit on June 4 (Docket No. 25-5210), consolidating this 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). For procedural clarity, 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 briefs 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.
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 Doe v. McHenry, and Moe v. Trump, with Doe as the lead case. All further filings were only made in Doe.
The operative preliminary injunction was set to expire on May 20, 2026. The plaintiffs filed an additional 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, 2026 the court rejected the defendants’ argument and granted a preliminary injunction from May 21 to June 8, when the mandate from the appellate court would issue. 2026 WL 1699528. 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 of the plaintiffs 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 in the D.C. District Court assigned to 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 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. Warden T. 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. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants in this lawsuit opposed intervention.
On June 7, 2026, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from implementing section 4(a) of the Executive Order against the plaintiffs. The court held 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 this 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, 2026.
On June 22, 2026, the defendants appealed the district court’s June 7 preliminary relief to the D.C. Circuit (Docket No. 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. Warden T. 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.
On July 20, the court ordered the defendants to respond to the motion to enforce by July 24 and set an in-person hearing for July 29, 2026, on both the motion to intervene and the motion to enforce. On July 22, the court granted the proposed intervenors leave to file a reply in support of intervention, which they filed the same day.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jason Bondurant (7/18/2026)
Oliver Farnum (2/16/2025)
Emma Vayda (6/26/2025)
Zoe Hayes (10/11/2025)
Related Cases
Moe v. Trump, District of Massachusetts (2025)
Doe v. McHenry, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Moe v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628010/parties/jones-v-trump/
Austin, Sarah K. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Gerard Joseph
Attorney, Eric Dean
Attorney, Thomas G.
Counsel, Carolyn Frances
Austin, Sarah K. (District of Columbia)
Delgado, Jennifer Fiorica (District of Columbia)
Fang, Wayne (District of Columbia)
Julceus, Markiana (District of Columbia)
Kraner, Natalie J. (District of Columbia)
Levi, Jennifer (District of Columbia)
Shalom, Alexander (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69628010/jones-v-trump/
Last updated Aug. 23, 2026, 4:07 a.m.
Docket for: JONES v. TRUMP
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: Feb. 10, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff Jane Jones is an adult transgender woman who is currently incarcerated in a female prison facility. She has had gender-affirming surgery and has never been incarcerated in a men's facility.
Plaintiff Type(s):
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
Donald Trump
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00401
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05101
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05210
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05306
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05420
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05069
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05238
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Assault/abuse by residents/inmates/students
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Jones v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46103/ (last updated 10/11/2025).