Case: Kingdom v. Trump
1:25-cv-00691 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: March 7, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
President Trump issued Executive Order 14168 on January 20, 2025, just hours after taking office. Titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the order mandated a categorical prohibition on federal funding for gender-affirming care and required the BOP to end all such medical treatments and accommodations for incarcerated individuals. Section 4(c) of the executive order explicitly barred any medical procedures, treatments, or drugs aimed at conforming an inmate’s appearance to a gender different from their sex assigned at birth.
In subsequent weeks, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) implemented the order through two memoranda: the first, titled “Compliance with Executive Order ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’” was issued on February 21, 2025, and prohibited the purchase of gender-affirming items such as chest binders and hair removal devices while also requiring prison staff to refer to inmates by pronouns corresponding to their assigned sex at birth. The second, titled “Executive Order 14168 Compliance,” was issued on February 28, 2025, and enforced a total ban on federal funding for gender-affirming medical care, including hormone therapy and surgical interventions. Together, these documents were understood as the “Implementing Memoranda.” This putative class action challenges the executive order and its implementing memoranda,
On March 7, 2025, three incarcerated transgender individuals filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, sued President Trump and high-ranking officials from the Department of Justice and the BOP to challenge EO 14168 and its implementing memoranda. They defined the class as, “[a]ll persons who are or will be incarcerated in the custody of BOP who are or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria or meet the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and who are receiving, or would receive, gender-affirming health care absent such care being proscribed by EO 14168 and the Implementing Memoranda.” They brought claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by denying them medically necessary treatment. Judge Royce C. Lamberth was assigned to the case.
Represented by the ACLU and the Transgender Law Center, plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking enforcement of the policy in BOP facilities, a declaration that applying the executive order to medical care was unconstitutional, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Plaintiffs alleged that the abrupt termination of their hormone therapy and accommodations caused severe psychological harm, including anxiety, mood swings, and suicidal thoughts. They claimed the ban violated the Eighth Amendment by denying care through a blanket policy without individualized assessments, and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by targeting transgender individuals. They also asserted violations of the Rehabilitation Act’s ban on disability-based discrimination and argued that the BOP’s implementation of the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional.
The same day of the filing, plaintiffs informed the judge of a related case, Doe v. McHenry, because the cases grew out of the same event with common issues of fact.
On March 17, plaintiffs filed motions for a preliminary injunction and for both provisional and official class certification. The preliminary injunction sought to bar enforcement of Executive Order 14168 and related BOP memoranda as applied to medical care and accommodations, and to require the BOP to restore gender-affirming care consistent with policies in place before January 20, 2025. In the motion for class certification, plaintiffs proposed a class consisting of all current and future BOP inmates diagnosed with or meeting criteria for gender dysphoria who are receiving, or would receive, gender-affirming care but for EO 14168 and its implementation.
On March 28, the defendants filed a motion in opposition to class certification and a preliminary injunction. They argued the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that they did not meet the requirements of Rule 23 for class certification. On April 1, 2025, an amicus brief in support of the Executive Order was filed in support of the defendants by the states of Indiana, Idaho, and 22 other states, who argued that policymakers have the authority to regulate medicine, particularly controversial practices like cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries, and that the Eighth Amendment does not grant prisoners greater rights to these treatments than free citizens.
Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction on June 3, 2025, requiring the BOP to continue providing gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and related accommodations, to all current and future inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 2025 WL 1568238. The court also certified the case as a class action, extending protections to more than 2,000 transgender individuals in federal custody. However, the order did not require the BOP to provide surgical interventions.
In his opinion, Judge Lamberth criticized the Trump administration for adopting the policy without adequately considering its impact on transgender inmates, describing it as likely unconstitutional and arbitrary. He stated that denying medically approved treatment could violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Administrative Procedure Act claims due to the arbitrary nature of the policy reversal.
On July 14, 2025, a transgender inmate named Carla Keys filed a motion to intervene in the case, alleging that the BOP was not complying with the court's order. The motion sought a civil contempt finding against the BOP. Keys also sought a preliminary injunction to require the BOP to provide daily electronic access to the PACER system and to restore legal research access on housing unit computers. Additionally, the motion sought an order compelling the BOP to publish the preliminary injunction and memorandum opinion on the electronic bulletin board and in hard copies for all federal prisoners. On August 4, Plaintiffs requested leave to review.
On August 8, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for a renewed preliminary injunction; it was granted on August 20, 2025.
On November 18, 2025, Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. They argued that the court should grant partial summary judgment because Defendants have willfully and in bad faith not complied with the Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs claim Defendants had been put on notice of their disobedience and given an opportunity to correct, but did not.
Renewed Preliminary Injunctions
On October 31, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to renew their preliminary injunction. Their motion was granted on November 17, 2025, and the PI will stay in effect until March 31, 2026, enjoining the defendants from implementing Section 4(c) of Executive Order 14168 against any class member from December 1, 2025, to March 1, 2026.
On February 5, 2026, Plaintiffs again moved to renew the PI. The motion was granted on February 12, 2026. The PI will last through May 31, 2026.
Status Reports and Retaliation
On December 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report. Class Counsel set up a hotline where class members could report concerns of non-compliance. In some cases, Defendants had resolved noncompliance issues. However, in most instances, the issues of noncompliance had only been partially resolved or not resolved at all.
On January 12, 2026, Defendants filed a status report alleging that of around 100 complaints of non-compliance, Defendants had resolved all but eight. Defendants alleged that chest binders are available to some prisons through the commissary.
On February 17, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants' status report. Plaintiffs claimed that chest binders were made less available because they used to be available for free through laundry services, and now are prohibitively expensive through the commissary. Plaintiffs also explained that in some instances, class members' hormone replacement therapy had only been partially restored, with some medications not being prescribed. Moreover, some class members had been removed from the list on account of the diagnoses of gender dysphoria being invalidated or not up to date. Most concerningly, the status report alleged disturbing acts of retaliation, where correctional officers at FCI Butner broke class member Pinson's arm and wrist while referencing her declarations.
On February 19, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order. Defendants shall take no actions that harass, intimidate, or otherwise retaliate against witnesses who have provided or will in the future provide the Court information, either via oral testimony or written statements. The court also ordered that Defendants shall take no actions that harass, intimidate, or otherwise retaliate against people incarcerated in BOP custody who have filed or will file grievances alleging noncompliance with this Court's preliminary injunction, or who have contacted or will contact class counsel or this Court alleging noncompliance. Judge Lamberth also denied the class members’ motions to intervene, stating that the current class counsel was adequately representing the class by investigating reports of retaliation and harassment. He ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to continue communication with class members who report noncompliance.
On February 25, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt based on the ongoing allegations of retaliation against class members who have submitted declarations to the court.
On February 26, 2026, Judge Lamberth granted the motion to show cause, and ordered Defendants to submit a response. At an in-person hearing, Lamberth stated that if the allegations from plaintiffs' lawyers are true, the action represents "blatant disregard of this court." Lamberth questioned whether the warden of the FCI Butner had turned a blind eye to retaliation against class members. Judge Lamberth indicated that he would view any request to reconsider the Protective order skeptically. At the hearing, Plaintiffs made an oral motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, which was granted. Defendants were ordered to prepare a detailed plan of the steps they are going to take to protect class members in FCI Butner.
On March 3, 2026, Defendants submitted a response to the order to show cause why the Warden and managing officers of FCI Butner should not be held in contempt. They argued that the Order is too broad and ambiguous and that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof of retaliation.
On March 4, 2026, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 19 Protective Order. Defendants alleged that any claims of retaliation were unsubstantiated. Defendants also filed an Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Written Notice of the Protective Order to inform the prison wardens.
Also on March 4, 2026, Judge Lamberth held another hearing. Counsel for Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were in violation of both the Protective Order and the Order to Show Cause. Counsel noted that the DOJ response included only denials submitted by FCI Butner's warden, who was on leave half of the time between when the protective order was issued and when the emergency motion was filed.
At the hearing, Judge Lamberth told the parties that if necessary, he would hold the Defendants in contempt. He did not rule on the Show Cause order from the bench, but has taken it under advisement. Judge Lamberth also ordered the parties to confer and present a joint plan for modifying the protective order or, if that does not work, the plaintiffs must respond to the motion for reconsideration within 14 days.
On March 5, 2026, Judge Lamberth denied the extension of time to provide written notice of the protective order.
On March 11, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion for reconsideration, arguing that the declarations provided by the Defendants in their motion do not disprove the allegations of retaliation, and that they actually corroborate the Plaintiffs’ evidence. Plaintiffs also argued that the BOP officials involved in retaliation were obstructing justice.
Also on March 11, the plaintiff in Aguilar v. Trump, an incarcerated transgender woman, filed a motion in this lawsuit for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt. Another incarcerated transgender woman filed motions in this lawsuit for a preliminary injunction and TRO. Both petitioners sought relief through this class action for alleged retaliation they experienced after the EO and after seeking legal intervention.
On April 1, Defendants filed a motion to quash the preliminary injunction. Defendants alleged that on February 13, 2026, BOP issued a new policy, “Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria,” which banned inmates from accessing gender affirming healthcare and social accommodations and proposed psychotherapy as the primary treatment, and on March 6, Defendants filed and provided to Plaintiffs the administrative record for the 2026 Policy. They argued that BOP’s issuance of a new policy with a reasoned explanation represented a sufficient change in circumstances to invalidate the basis for the 2025 preliminary injunction.
The same day, April 1, the parties filed a joint status report with proposed modifications to the February 19 Protective Order. The parties agreed on a three step process, but disagreed on whether inmates must exhaust their administrative remedies before beginning that process. On April 16, Judge Lamberth vacated the February 19 Protective Order. He adopted the proposed revised protective order and Plaintiffs’ proposed process for resolving claims of retaliation brought under the Order. The revised Protective Order creates a three step process: (1) BOP administrative remedies, (2) good faith informal resolution between counsel, and (3) formal resolution before the court. Judge Lamberth agreed with Plaintiffs that the PLRA does not require full administrative exhaustion in step (1) before proceeding to step (2). The order also denied Defendants’ March 4 motion for reconsideration and discharged the Plaintiffs’ February 25 motion to show cause due to the hearing and Defendants’ cooperation in revising the protective order. 2026 WL 1194492.
On April 10, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their response to Defendants’ motion to quash, seeking time to file a supplemental complaint and motion for an updated preliminary injunction before the court decided on the motion to quash. The court granted the motion to stay on April 15 and set new briefing deadlines.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on April 29, and a supplemental complaint on April 30. These filings expanded the active preliminary injunction and the claims in the original complaint to include BOP’s 2026 Policy, seeking a declaration that the EO and 2026 Policy violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and that the 2026 Policy violated the APA. They also requested the 2026 Policy and any future policies in line with the EO be vacated and Defendants be enjoined from implementing the EO as applied to medical care and accommodations. Plaintiffs also asked the court to permanently certify the class and award attorneys’ fees and costs.
On May 13, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the EO and 2026 Policy, that the EO and 2026 Policy complied with the Eighth Amendment, the APA, and the Equal Protection Clause, and that Plaintiffs lack a cause of action to bring claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants asserted that the treatment plan for transgender inmates in their 2026 Policy was sufficient to comply with the Eighth Amendment.
Also on May 13, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a renewed preliminary injunction to fill in the gap while the court decided on the updated preliminary injunction.
On May 14, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending the court’s holding on the motion for summary judgment.
On May 26, 2026 the court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a renewed preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from implementing Section 4(c) of the EO against class members and ordering Defendants to restore and maintain gender affirming care for transgender inmates. Defendants appealed the renewed preliminary injunction on May 27 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Docket No. 26-5191). The same day, Defendants filed a motion in the district court to stay the injunction pending the result of the appeal. Judge Lamberth denied this motion on June 2, finding that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were granted.
On May 29, in the appellate court, Defendants filed a motion to stay pending appeal. On June 17, the appellate court granted the stay. The court found that the injunction was an administrative injunction, granted based on factors like judicial economy rather than the typical preliminary injunction factors, and the district court had no legal basis to grant an administrative injunction. The appellate court also found that Defendants faced irreparable injury by the court’s intrusion onto the workings of the executive branch. 2026 WL 1905418.
In the district court, on June 17, Judge Lamberth granted Plaintiffs’ April 29 motion for an updated preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from implementing Section 4(c) of the EO or the 2026 Policy and requiring Defendants to restore and maintain gender affirming care for transgender inmates. In its order, the court dismissed as moot Defendants’ April 1 motion to quash. On June 22, Defendants appealed the updated preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit (Docket No. 26-5236) and filed a motion to stay pending appeal in the district court. Judge Lamberth denied the motion to stay on June 25 for the same reasons in his June 2 opinion.
On June 30, Defendants filed with the D.C. Circuit a motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal (No. 26-5236). The May 26 renewed preliminary injunction remains stayed under the appellate court’s June 17 order (No. 26-5181), while the June 17 updated preliminary injunction remains in effect, pending the D.C. Circuit’s decision on the stay. Incarcerated individuals have continued to file pro se requests for leave to file in the district court, seeking to join the class or raise compliance concerns on June 29, July 8, and July 17, 2026.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jason Bondurant (7/9/2026)
Jillian Snyman (3/19/2025)
Victoria Tan (8/4/2025)
Zoe Hayes (3/6/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69717615/parties/kingdom-v-trump/
Attorney, Michael Krevans
Canonico, Domenic
Aguilar, Oscar Contreras (District of Columbia)
ALFORD, MICHELLE (District of Columbia)
Barta, James Allen (District of Columbia)
Cooper, Leslie (District of Columbia)
Egyes, Lynly Serena (District of Columbia)
Epstein, Elisa (District of Columbia)
Fathi, David C. (District of Columbia)
Inglehart, Milo (District of Columbia)
Kendrick, Corene Thaedra (District of Columbia)
Knizhnik, Shana (District of Columbia)
Meerkamper, Shawn Thomas (District of Columbia)
Melchert, Dale (District of Columbia)
Morris, Maria V. (District of Columbia)
Noor, Megan (District of Columbia)
Nowlin-Sohl, Li (District of Columbia)
Aguilar, Oscar Contreras (District of Columbia)
ALFORD, MICHELLE (District of Columbia)
Barta, James Allen (District of Columbia)
CRAWFORD, ANTONIO (District of Columbia)
DYE, MICHAEL R. (District of Columbia)
GILLETTE, JOB (District of Columbia)
GOODALL, ANDY QUINN (District of Columbia)
HUNT, MARISSA (District of Columbia)
KEYS, CARLA C. (District of Columbia)
MILTON, WILLIE A. (District of Columbia)
NASH, DARNELL (District of Columbia)
PINSON, JEREMY (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69717615/kingdom-v-trump/
Last updated July 28, 2026, 6:25 p.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Healthcare Access and Reproductive Issues
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 7, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The class is defined as: “All persons who are or will be incarcerated in the custody of BOP who are or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria or meet the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and who are receiving, or would receive, gender-affirming health care absent such care being proscribed by EO 14168 and the Implementing Memoranda.”
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Federal
Christopher Bina
Dana Digiacomo
Donald J. Trump
Pamela Bondi
Shane Salem
William Lothrop
Defendant Type(s):
Facility 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-00691
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05181
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05236
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)
Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff
LGBTQ+:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Kingdom v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46207/ (last updated 3/6/2026).