Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-28WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an emergency appeal Tuesday, pleading with the Supreme Court to block lower court rulings that would force federal prisons to fund gender-transition surgeries and hormone therapies for transgender inmates. The administration argues that the ban, imposed under the previous executive order, is necessary to maintain prison discipline, allocate limited medical resources efficiently, and adhere to biological reality.
The case, currently on an expedited docket, stems from a class-action lawsuit brought by transgender inmates who claim that denying such treatments violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, ordering the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide sex-reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones. The DOJ now seeks a stay from the Supreme Court while it prepares a full appeal.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in the filing that “the government has a compelling interest in operating safe and orderly prisons, and that interest is undermined when inmates are allowed to medically alter their bodies in ways that conflict with security classifications and housing assignments.” The petition also notes that federal prisons are not medical facilities designed for elective treatments, and that taxpayer dollars should not fund procedures with questionable long-term benefits.
The controversy centers on the policy known as “Transgender Medical Services for Inmates,” initially enacted during the Trump administration and later modified. The policy bans any medical intervention aimed at aligning an inmate’s physical appearance with a gender identity different from their biological sex, except for rare cases of documented intersex conditions. Critics say the ban is discriminatory; supporters argue it is common sense rooted in science.
Conservative legal experts have rallied behind the DOJ’s position. “The government is not a health insurance company for every controversial desire,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, in a commentary not affiliated with FORTIS. “Prisons exist to punish and rehabilitate, not to affirm subjective identities at enormous expense.”
The financial implications are stark. A 2024 Government Accountability Office report estimated that providing full transition-related care to the approximately 1,200 transgender inmates in federal custody could cost taxpayers over $75 million annually, including hormone therapy, mental health counseling, and potentially dozens of surgeries. The DOJ’s filing warns that such costs “would divert resources from essential services like mental health, substance abuse treatment, and basic healthcare for the general inmate population.”
Medical evidence also remains divided. While some medical associations endorse gender-affirming care, other doctors and researchers caution that studies showing benefits are often small, short-term, and biased. Dr. Michael Levin, a biologist at the University of Florida, has publicly stated that “there is no robust evidence that surgically altering healthy tissue improves psychological outcomes in the long run.” The DOJ’s brief cites these scientific uncertainties, arguing that the state should not be forced to experiment on prisoners.
The Supreme Court has previously avoided ruling directly on transgender medical treatments, but this case could set a national precedent. If the Court denies the stay, federal prisons will likely be required to start or continue providing transition-related care immediately. The DOJ’s plea is seen as a last-ditch effort to halt that process.
Conservative media and think tanks have seized on the issue. The Heritage Foundation published a report calling the lower court rulings “judicial activism masquerading as compassion,” noting that the vast majority of Americans oppose using taxpayer funds for gender-transition procedures for prisoners. A 2025 Rasmussen poll found that 68% of likely voters said federal prisons should not pay for sex-reassignment surgeries.
On the other side, civil liberties groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have praised the lower court rulings as necessary to protect the constitutional rights of transgender inmates. “Denying medically necessary care is a violation of human dignity and the Eighth Amendment,” said Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice at the ACLU, in a statement.
The DOJ’s petition is now before Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters from the D.C. Circuit. He may decide alone or refer the case to the full Court. A decision is expected within days.
In a related development, several states—including Texas, Florida, and Tennessee—have filed amicus briefs supporting the federal ban, arguing that states should not be forced to follow any future Court ruling that could expand transgender medical rights to state prisons as well. The Justice Department’s strong stance signals that this administration is willing to fight the culture war on the battleground of federal corrections.
As the legal battle intensifies, the FORTIS editorial line stands firm: the truth of biological sex cannot be legislated away, and government overreach into expensive, experimental procedures must be curtailed. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to correct course, protect taxpayers, and uphold a sane correctional system.