Case: Moe v. Trump
1:25-cv-00653 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: March 6, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the Trump Administration's implementation of an Executive Order targeting transgender individuals by denying them legal recognition under federal law. The plaintiff, a transgender woman incarcerated in federal prison, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. She sued President Donald Trump, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The plaintiff sought emergency declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the newly signed Executive Order 14168 violated her constitutional and statutory rights by ordering her transfer to a men’s prison and banning her access to medically necessary gender-affirming care.
Just hours after his inauguration 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.
The plaintiff had been housed in a women’s facility throughout her incarceration. She had lived as a woman for many years and had consistently received hormone therapy, deemed medically necessary by her doctors. After the Executive Order was issued, she was abruptly removed from the general prison population and placed in solitary confinement, pending transfer to a men’s facility. On January 25, the BOP changed her gender marker in its public records from “female” to “male.” She was not given a way to contest the transfer or challenge the change.
On January 26, 2025, the plaintiff filed her complaint. The complaint alleged that the Executive Order and the defendants’ enforcement of it violated her 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 Moe at a known and substantial risk of sexual violence. Further, she was denied hormone therapy and other gender-affirming care, which was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs. The EO violated the Rehabilitation Act because it denied her reasonable accommodation for a recognized disability (gender dysphoria). Finally, the BOP’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to existing federal regulations and were made without the required notice-and-comment procedures, thereby violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
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. She emphasized the urgency, stating that she would face irreparable harm without immediate intervention.
On January 26, the plaintiff moved to seal the case to protect her anonymity. This order was granted. On February 7, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, because that is where the plaintiff is incarcerated; Judge Royce C. Lamberth was assigned to the case. On April 2, 2025, the case was unsealed; however, all information that would identify the plaintiff was ordered to be redacted.
On January 26, 2025, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the EO. In this motion, she argued that without immediate care, she would suffer irreparable physical and psychological harm. In their response, the defendants argued the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her constitutional or statutory claims, nor did she demonstrate risk of irreparable harm. In her reply to the defendants’ objection, the plaintiff argued that her claims were justiciable and meritorious, proving she was likely to succeed. The TRO and preliminary injunction were granted on March 10, 2025.
The government filed their appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court on April 9. On April 14, 2025 defendants filed their statement of issues in the appeals court: "Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctions blocking the transfer of trans-identifying male inmates to male facilities, on the ground that any such transfer violates the Eighth Amendment."
On April 30, the D.C. Circuit consolidated this case with Doe v. McHenry and Jones 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, the plaintiff filed a motion for a renewed preliminary injunction, which the district court granted on May 22. To keep things procedurally clear, defendants appealed the renewed preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit on June 4 (Case Number 25-5215), 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). 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 Jones 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 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 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 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. 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, 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. 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 (7/9/2026)
Jillian Snyman (4/16/2025)
Liv Akkerman-Byram (6/25/2025)
Zoe Hayes (3/1/2026)
Related Cases
Doe v. McHenry, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Jones v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69878269/parties/moe-v-trump/
Austin, Sarah K. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Eric Dean
Attorney, Gerard Joseph
Attorney, Thomas G. (District of Columbia)
Barta, James A. (District of Columbia)
Austin, Sarah K. (District of Columbia)
Delgado, Jennifer Fiorica (District of Columbia)
Esquire, Kara Jane (District of Columbia)
Galvan, Ernest (District of Columbia)
Hattem, Benjamin (District of Columbia)
Hill, Eve L. (District of Columbia)
Klein, Bennett H. (Massachusetts)
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/69878269/moe-v-trump/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 4:36 a.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 6, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an adult transgender woman incarcerated in a low-security federal prison for women
Attorney Organizations:
GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Donald J. Trump
Federal Bureau of Prisons
U.S. Attorney General
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):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00653
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05108
District of Massachusetts 1:25-cv-10195
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05215
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05101
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05420
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-5427
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 25-05099
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 26-05238
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:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Placement in detention facilities
LGBTQ+:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Moe v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46389/ (last updated 3/1/2026).