Case: Fleming v. Warden T. Rule
4:25-cv-00157 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Filed Date: Feb. 19, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This lawsuit, filed by a woman incarcerated in federal prison in Texas, sought to remove all transgender women from the facility.
On February 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Warden of Federal Medical Center Carswell (FMC Carswell), Warden T. Rule. Plaintiff, an inmate at FMC Carswell (a designated federal women’s prison), sought injunctive relief to remove all "biological males" from the facility pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as well as the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff alleged that Trump's Executive Order 14168, which directed the federal Bureau of Prisons to house people according to sex assigned at birth and to stop providing gender-affirming care, rendered her use of the facility's grievance proceedings futile, meaning she had exhausted her administrative remedy options.
The case was assigned to District Judge Reed O’Connor, and reassigned on July 18, 2025 to District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.
Plaintiff's case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay a filing fee on April 15, 2025. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2025 and the case was reopened on May 22, 2025. On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff Fleming’s case was consolidated with Plaintiff Herrera’s case, both incarcerated cisgender women with similar claims. On November 4, 2025, The plaintiffs filed their Verified Amended Complaint (Docket No. 61). The Verified Amended Complaint added then-Acting Attorney General Pamela Bondi, BOP Director William K. Marshall III, and the United States of America as Defendants. Represented by Brown Fox PLLC, a private firm, the plaintiffs brought claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as claims pursuant to RFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that BOP’s policy governing housing placements for transgender women violated RFRA, the APA, and their rights to bodily privacy and against cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that BOP retaliated against Plaintiff Herrera for utilizing her freedom of speech, a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, and fees and costs.
On November 3, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO preventing transgender women from being housed in women's prisons. Defendants contended that because the plaintiffs had not exhausted all administrative remedies, they could not be granted a TRO. The court granted the TRO in part and denied it in part on November 19. As to the plaintiffs, prison officials must not allow any inmates who were assigned male at birth to be housed in or access any area with the plaintiffs. On November 17, Plaintiff Fleming was willingly transferred to a federal prison camp in Florida. On November 25, the plaintiffs moved to extend the TRO until December 19. This was granted on December 1. It was again extended until January 30, 2026.
On November 10, 2025, two other women incarcerated at FMC Carswell moved to intervene as plaintiffs. Their motion was granted on December 19, 2025.
On December 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum so that they could appear before the court at an evidentiary hearing to determine whether they had exhausted their administrative remedies. This Writ was issued on December 10, 2025. The court held the evidentiary hearing on December 18, 2025. On December 30, it rejected the defendants’ administrative-exhaustion defense and set the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion for hearing. 2025 WL 3764130.
On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed their First Amended Complaint in Intervention (Docket No. 125), adding themselves as Plaintiffs to the case.
On January 20, 2026, the defendants filed a notice of agreement with the plaintiffs' request that they not be housed with male inmates. This meant that the defendants would agree not to house the plaintiffs with any person assigned male at birth. The same day, the defendants also moved to dismiss counts five and six of Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera’s Verified Amended Complaint (Docket No. 61); that is, the claims asserting First Amendment retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On February 2, 2026, the parties stipulated to a permanent injunction as to Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera, permanently enjoining the defendants from housing any person assigned male at birth within the general female population in any housing unit in which either plaintiff is housed, or from having access to the same bathroom or shower areas.
On February 17, 2026, an incarcerated woman sought to intervene through a pro se letter to the court, purporting to act on behalf of all women in BOP custody, and requested that the injunction entered by the court be put in place nationwide. On March 31, the court declined to take any action requested by her letter because it did not comply with local civil procedure rules.
Due to the stipulated injunction, the defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in intervention (Docket No. 125) on March 9, 2026.
On March 27, 2026, Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera filed a Second Amended Complaint with a jury demand (Docket No. 149), alleging that the stipulated injunction addressed their constitutional claims, but not their claims under RFRA and the APA. No new defendants were added, but the plaintiffs now sued Warden T. Rule in his official and individual capacities for damages under RFRA. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief against housing transgender women in the general population of women's prisons and protecting religious freedom under RFRA, damages under RFRA for the burden on the plaintiffs’ religious exercise, vacatur of the challenged BOP policies, an order barring transfer or retaliation against Plaintiff Herrera, and costs and fees. They also asked the court to vacate the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) regulations to the extent those regulations permit housing transgender women in women’s facilities.
On March 30, 2026, Plaintiff-Intervenors moved for a preliminary and permanent injunction, seeking to segregate FMC Carswell by sex assigned at birth, and alleging that the narrower relief granted to Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera did not remedy the harm to Plaintiff-Intervenors. Plaintiff-Intervenors argued that the injunction issued in Doe v. McHenry, similar litigation taking place in the District of Columbia, which prevented transgender women from being transferred to men's prisons, did not bar their request because the transgender women could be separated from the general population rather than transferred.
The defendants moved to dismiss the March 27 Second Amended complaint (Docket No. 149) on April 10, 2026, claiming that because the plaintiffs’ alleged underlying harm was remedied by the permanent injunction, the RFRA and APA claims were moot. The defendants also argued that plaintiffs had no standing to bring their APA claim.
On April 30, 2026, Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera moved for partial summary judgment on their APA claim, seeking vacatur of the BoP policies that required screening individual transgender and intersex inmates upon intake to determine their safest housing placement. They argued that the record clearly showed a violation of Congress’ authority under the PREA.
The court heard arguments on the pending motions on May 20, 2026. The same day, it granted leave for law professors Margo Schlanger and Samuel Bagenstos to file an amicus brief opposing vacatur of the PREA regulations. On May 26, 2026, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in intervention (Docket No. 125), 2026 WL 1473381, and granted Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ March 30 preliminary injunction request. 2026 WL 1471884. The court held that the plaintiff-intervenors met their burden of proof to establish standing as to the alleged harm. The court found that Plaintiff-Intervenors were entitled to injunctive relief on some of their claims, and that it could offer a form of relief that did not conflict with the preliminary injunction in Doe v. McHenry. Because the relief the Plaintiff-Intervenors requested was broader in scope than the stipulated permanent injunction applying to Plaintiffs Fleming and Herrera, the court ordered the parties to confer and submit proposed terms of a preliminary injunction they could all agree to.
On June 2, 2026, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 149), holding that Plaintiffs still had an interest in adjudicating their RFRA claims and successfully established standing for their APA claims. 2026 WL 1557960. The same day, the court effectuated Plaintiff-Intervenors’ March 30 preliminary injunction, ordering Defendants to segregate transgender women housed at FMC Carswell from all inmates assigned female at birth, and separate movement, routing, and scheduling to avoid contact between transgender and cisgender inmates in housing or common areas.
On June 5, 2026, Defendant Warden T. Rule filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him in his individual capacity, asserting that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had failed to plead facts that his conduct violated RFRA. He also claimed that RFRA claim is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) because the plaintiffs may only sustain damages against him if they suffered a qualifying physical injury or sexual assault as a result of his conduct, which they did not allege. Defendants answered the operative complaints on June 9 and June 16.
The case then intersected with the Doe v. McHenry litigation in the District of Columbia; several of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit are housed at FMC Carswell. On June 5, 2026, the Plaintiff-Intervenors in this lawsuit moved to intervene as defendants in that one, and on June 9, 2026, they filed notice in this action of the preliminary injunction entered in Doe v. McHenry on June 7, 2026, which prohibited the transgender inmates at FMC Carswell from being transferred to a men's prison.
On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff Fleming withdrew her request for attorneys’ fees and costs related to her constitutional claims.
On August 21, 2026, the court in Doe v McHenry denied the Plaintiff-Intervenors' motion to intervene in that lawsuit. It noted that the motion to intervene was filed 16 months after the start of that 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 this lawsuit and the relief granted here, with which it had not interfered. Ultimately, it held that because the government was already adequately representing their interests, intervention was not necessary, and risked causing undue delay, complexity, and confusion in that lawsuit.
The court heard oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and Warden T. Rule’s motion to dismiss on July 24, 2026. On August 25, 2026, it issued its ruling, denying without prejudice the motion for partial summary judgment as to the APA claims, concluding, summarily, that the "plaintiffs have failed at this preliminary stage to satisfy their heavy burden to establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of their APA claims necessary to warrant judgment in their favor." 2026 WL 2494858.
On August 28, 2026, the court granted the Plaintiff-Intervenors' motion for a renewed preliminary injunction, extending the relief for 90 days. The renewed injunction again prohibited FMC Carswell from: (1) housing any "biologically male" inmate in general population of any housing unit where biological females are present; and (2) permitting any "biologically male" inmate from entering or remaining in any space at the facility where biological female inmates are present, including showers, restrooms, changing areas, dormitory spaces, elevators, dining areas, recreation areas, the mailroom, and other shared spaces, "so that intervenor-plaintiffs and other female inmates are not forced to encounter male inmates while showering, toileting, dressing, sleeping, eating, recreating, receiving mail, or otherwise navigating daily prison life." The order made clear that it did not prohibit housing transgender women in the Special Housing Unit as necessary, as long as not sharing a cell, from transport to hospital, medical, or suicide-watch areas, or from legal visits, as long as securely escorted and not unattended. The order required FMC Carswell to house transgender women in "secure, segregated" area at the facility, and to use "separate movement, routing, scheduling, or other measures as necessary to prevent overlap."
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jason Bondurant (7/24/2026)
Zoe Hayes (3/30/2026)
Related Cases
Doe v. McHenry, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Kingdom v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69662117/fleming-v-warden-t-rule/
Last updated Sept. 27, 2026, 3:33 a.m.
Docket for: Fleming v. Warden T. Rule
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 19, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Inmates at a federal prison
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Acting Attorney General of the United States
Director of the Bureau of Prisons
United States of America
Warden of Federal Medical Center Carswell
Private Entity/Person
Warden T. Rule
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
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Privileges and/or Immunities Clauses
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Texas 4:25-cv-00157
Northern District of Texas 4:25-cv-00438
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Sexual abuse by residents/inmates
LGBTQ+:
Case Summary of Fleming v. Warden T. Rule, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47502/ (last updated 3/30/2026).