GOP-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Executive Order On Transgender Inmates
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order barring the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from providing hormone therapy and gender-affirming care to transgender inmates.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Tuesday.
What To Know
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration must continue providing hormone therapy and accommodations to transgender inmates.
The plaintiffs in the case challenged Trump's January 20 executive order targeting "gender ideology," which directed the BOP to stop providing "any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex."
President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington.
Evan Vucci/AP
Lamberth had previously ordered the administration to continue providing healthcare to individual transgender inmates and ruled that transgender women could not be moved to men's prison facilities.
But Politico reported that Tuesday is the first time a judge has issued a ruling that broadly prohibits federal prisons from pulling back medical care for transgender inmates.
"In light of the plaintiffs' largely personal motives for undergoing gender-affirming care, neither the BOP nor the Executive Order provides any serious explanation as to why the treatment modalities covered by the Executive Order or implementing memoranda should be handled differently than any other mental health intervention," Lamberth wrote.
The judge's ruling isn't limited to the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit; Lamberth also agreed to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of anyone who is or will be incarcerated in federal prisons.
What People Are Saying
Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prisons Project, said in a statement: "This is a critical ruling for our clients and all transgender people in Bureau of Prisons custody. This administration's cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution. The denial of medically necessary health care, including gender-affirming health care, to people in prison is a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. We will continue to advocate for the rights of all incarcerated people."
Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, managing attorney at Transgender Law Center, said in a statement: "Today's ruling is made possible by the courageous plaintiffs who fought to protect their rights and the rights of transgender people everywhere. This administration's continued targeting of transgender people is cruel and threatens the lives of all people. No person—incarcerated or not, transgender or not—should have their rights to medically-necessary care denied. We are grateful the court understood that our clients deserve basic dignity and healthcare, and we will continue to fight alongside them."
The Associated Press contributed reporting to this story.
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘We Don't Want Them': Trump Cracks Down on Foreign Nationals Coming to America
Donald Trump took his war on immigrants up a notch on Wednesday night, issuing an executive order barring nationals from 12 different countries from entering the United States, and another denying visas to any foreign students trying to enter the U.S. to attend Harvard University. The president posted a video to Truth Social on Wednesday explaining the travel ban, asserting that the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, has 'underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who have come here as temporary visitors and overstayed their visas.' 'We don't want them,' Trump said, noting that there are 'millions and millions of these illegals who should not be in our country.' The attack in Boulder was carried out by an Egyptian national who the administration says overstayed their visa. Egypt is not mentioned in the executive order. The travel ban affects Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The order cites 'national security and the national interests' of the nation, as well as the need to protect America from 'foreign terrorists.' Trump is also partially restricting the entry of nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Trump attempted to impose travel bans during his first term in office, but they were blocked by the courts. He vowed in the run-up to his run to take back the White House that he would bring a travel ban back 'even bigger and much stronger than before.' Trump has also ratcheted up his war on the nation's most prestigious higher-education institution, signing an order barring foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard. The order, titled, 'Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University,' deems that Harvard is 'no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs.' The administration has been doing everything it can to hamstring the university — including freezing billions in federal grants — alleging that it hasn't done enough to crack down on antisemitism as students have protested the war in Gaza. Harvard has fought back, most recently in a lawsuit last week over the administration's move to restrict the school from enrolling international students. A federal judge quickly blocked the effort. The school did not take kindly to Trump's order on Wednesday night, either. 'This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' a spokesperson for the school said in a statement. 'Harvard will continue to protect its international students.' Harvard has shown it is willing to take Trump to court over the administration's actions. The courts have been mixed on the president's immigration agenda, although multiple federal judges have blocked the push to deport immigrants without due process. The Supreme Court ruled last week that the administration can revoke the temporary protected status of over 500,000 immigrants, making them subject to deportation. More from Rolling Stone Sean Penn Criticizes Plan to Remove Harvey Milk's Name From Navy Ship Late-Night Hosts Take Aim at Trump's Feud With Musk: 'Blew Up Faster Than a SpaceX Rocket' Yes, the Trump Admin Is Still Very Much Attacking Abortion Rights Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Trump travel ban will affect British tourists
Nationals from 12 countries will be barred from entering the United States under President Trump's new travel ban. In a video posted by the White House on Wednesday June 4, President Trump said the restrictions were 'a key part of preventing major foreign terror attacks on American soil.' In addition to the 12 countries facing a total ban, nationals from an additional seven countries will face partial restrictions on entering the United States. The travel ban echoes a similar policy introduced in 2017, during Trump's first term, when he banned foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The only countries that feature on both 2017 and 2025 lists are Iran, Libya and Somalia. Nationals from the following countries cannot travel to the US for immigrant or non-immigrant purposes: Afghanistan Myanmar Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen Certain visa programs on offer to nationals from the following countries have been suspended, but an outright travel ban has not been implemented: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela Announcing the ban, President Trump said: 'The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made and likewise new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.' Athletes travelling for major sporting events (including the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics), certain dual nationals and Afghan nationals with Special Immigrant Visas will be exempt. The secretary of state also said there could be exemptions made on a 'case-by-case' basis. Despite Donald Trump citing the recent attack in Colorado by an Egyptian national when announcing his latest travel ban, Egypt is not included in the 19 countries. The broad reason for the travel ban is 'national security', but there are some specific categories. For some countries the concern is that there is no reliable process for issuing passports or vetting nationals leaving the country. This applies to Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Venezuela. For others, the concern is that there are a high number of immigrants overstaying their US visas. This applies to Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan. Then there are the countries that are included because of terrorist activity or 'state-sponsored terrorism'. These include Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Libya and Somalia. The travel ban will come into effect on June 9, 2025. No end date has been provided. This gives slightly more time for preparations to be made compared to 2017's executive order, when there was widespread disruption across US airports as nationals from banned countries were turned around at the border. Dual nationals are exempt from the travel ban. If you hold both British and Iranian passports and travel into the United States on a British passport, you will not be automatically denied entry. However, certain dual nationals (including British/Iranian nationals) are exempt from the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (Esta) visa-waiver scheme and will need to apply for a full visa (see below). The United States prevents British citizens from applying for an Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (Esta) visa waiver if they have visited certain countries since March 2011. These are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Somalia (including Somaliland), Sudan, Syria and Yemen. This, however, is not linked to the Trump travel ban. The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act was signed by Barack Obama in 2015. You also cannot apply for an Esta visa waiver if you have been to Cuba since January 12, 2021, after Donald Trump designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. If you have travelled to these countries, it is not impossible to enter the United States, but it does mean you need to apply (and pay) for a full US visa. You will also need to apply for a full visa if you are a UK citizen with dual nationality with Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea or Sudan, regardless of whether you have been present in that country since March 2011. You can apply for an Esta (valid for up to 90 days of travel) online for the price of $21 (£15.50). To get a visa, you will need to attend an appointment at the US embassy and pay $185 (£136) during the application stage. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The parade of presidential pardons is a perversion of justice
There are all sorts of checks and balances baked into the Constitution. But one power sits above the law, untouched by Congress, immune to the courts and utterly unaccountable: the presidential pardon. It is the kind of absolute authority you'd expect in a monarchy, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers thought they were building a system of justice with a human touch — where a president, guided by conscience and compassion, could offer mercy to someone wrongfully convicted or genuinely reformed. The pardon was supposed to heal wounds, not reward political allies or well-heeled donors. Nice idea. Too bad it hasn't always worked out that way. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after Watergate to help the country move on. It was controversial, sure, but Ford was acting on principle, not personal gain. Contrast that with Bill Clinton, who — on his way out the door — pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive tax cheat whose ex-wife just happened to be a generous Clinton donor. That wasn't mercy. That was transactional politics. Joe Biden used his final hours in office to pardon his son, Hunter, and other family members — along with a few preemptive pardons aimed at blunting potential charges from a future Trump administration. That's not justice. That's insurance. And then there's Donald Trump. Where to begin? Trump opened his second term — on the first day, no less — by pardoning about 1,500 people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Among them were thugs who assaulted police officers. Then came the pardon parade: Reality television fraudsters Todd and Julie Chrisley. Former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who lied on his taxes. A corrupt sheriff in Virginia. A Nevada politician who pocketed money meant for fallen police officers — and used it to pay for plastic surgery. A nursing home operator who stiffed the IRS out of $10 million. Trump even tossed a pardon to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) — the same Blagojevich who tried to sell off Barack Obama's Senate seat like it was a used car on Craigslist. Blago, by the way, was also a contestant on Trump's 'Celebrity Apprentice' show. Imagine that. Trump's pardon lawyer — yes, he has one of those now — summed it up with a slogan that belongs on a bumper sticker: 'No MAGA left behind.' That's not a legal doctrine. That's a loyalty program. When presidents start handing out pardons like party favors to friends, donors or political cronies, it's not only the opposite of what the Founding Fathers had it mind, but it also sends a very loud and dangerous message — that the law doesn't apply equally. That who you know matters more than what you did. That justice is just another game for the powerful to rig. And when Biden pardons his own son and Trump pardons his loyal foot soldiers, what are we left with? A pardoning arms race, a perversion of justice that turns the most sacred executive power into a blunt instrument of politics and payback. So why should we care? Because once the ideals put forth in the Constitution become tainted by raw politics — once they're bent, twisted and ignored by the very people sworn to uphold those ideals — the entire democratic experiment begins to buckle. The presidential pardon was meant to show mercy, not mock the law. But in the hands of men more interested in self-preservation and political payback than in public service, it becomes just another tool for corruption. And telling ourselves that 'both sides do it' doesn't make it any less sleazy. Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him @BernardGoldberg. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
