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 Clay "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 rewnewed 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, 2025, 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.
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 called the parties to 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.
The Warden and managing officers of FCI Butner are required to submit a response no later than March 3, 2026, explaining why they should not be held in civil contempt.
At the hearing, Plaintiffs made an oral motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, which was granted. Defendants are ordered to prepare a detailed plan of the steps they are going to take to protect class members in FCI Butner.
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, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion for Extension of Time. Judge Lamberth denied the request.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
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/
Cooper, Leslie (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)
Cooper, Leslie (District of Columbia)
Egyes, Lynly (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)
Morris, Maria (District of Columbia)
Noor, Megan (District of Columbia)
Nowlin-Sohl, Li (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)
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 April 20, 2026, 4:09 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 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
Available Documents:
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:
Habilitation (training/treatment)
LGBTQ+:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Case Summary of Kingdom v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46207/ (last updated 3/6/2026).