Update: Courts Block Executive Order To Get Men Out Of Women’s Prisons

Feb 7

Two courts issued temporary restraining orders preventing the transfer of male prisoners who identify as transgender women to male prisons. More will follow.

Part of President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) number 14168, entitled DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT includes explicit directions to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to ensure that “males are not detained in women’s prisons.” It also requires the BOP to revise its medical care policies so that federal funds aren’t spent “for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” Section 4(a) Transfer Provision and 4(c) Medication Provision.

This order comes in response to the growing trend of housing male prisoners in women’s prisons, regardless of their anatomy or risk level, simply because they claim to believe they are “women.” Incarcerated women across the country have already felt the cruel and devastating effects of these policies, including rape, being put at risk for pregnancy, harassment, silencing, and other violations of their Constitutional rights.

Courts claim housing men with men is “cruel and unusual punishment”

As directed, the BOP initiated the process of returning men to men’s prisons. Before the transfers were completed, the BOP held the men in segregated housing units (SHU) and two complaints were filed in which the prisoners argued, among other issues, that the EO is unconstitutional because it violates the provision against cruel or unusual punishment.

The first case, Maria Moe v. Trump, was filed on January 26, 2025 in the federal district court in Boston. The prisoner moved to file his complaint under seal so that his identity would not be revealed to the male prison population. The judge allowed the motion. The second case, Jane Doe v. McHenry, was filed on Jan 30, 2025, in the federal district court in Washington D.C. on behalf of three male prisoners and is also under seal.

In both cases, the male prisoners argued that they would suffer irremediable harm if transferred to mens’ prisons because, as men who identify as “transgender women”, they would be subjected to increased risks of physical and sexual abuse. They also argued that they would suffer harm from the abrupt cessation of hormonal treatment.

The judges in both cases separately concluded that the men had a likelihood of success on the merits — that they would suffer irremediable harm if exposed to other male prisoners and if they did not receive hormonal therapy. The judges issued temporary restraining orders for all four male prisoners. This means that these male prisoners may not be sent to a male prison until their trial is concluded, and then, only if they lose. As noted, however, to get a restraining order the prisoner must show a likelihood of success so while losing is still a possibility the judges think it is likely that they will win.

Impact on state prisons and other cases

These restraining orders only apply to the two cases in question and have no impact on ongoing cases, such as WoLF’s case Chandler v. Macomber in California.

All federal prisons are impacted by the EO, however, conflicts remain between the order, PREA, state laws, and other policies. These conflicts will likely have to be resolved through the courts, which takes time.

State prisons are not generally affected by the executive order because they are not run by federal agencies.

Women’s needs not considered

We do not know anything more about the men in these specific cases. We do not know what crimes they were convicted of, although we know that in the federal prison system, nearly 50% of male inmates identifying as women were serving time for sex offenses. We do not know their specific ability to put women at risk of rape and pregnancy, however, we do know that 90% of men who identify as transgender keep their penis.

Some women do know the answers to those questions — the incarcerated women in these “women’s” facilities who have no choice but to live in intimate quarters with these men.

In all of the court’s concern for the “safety” of these male prisoners, not one ounce of consideration appears to have been given to the women who are put at risk every day by being forced to live, even share bunk beds with, with male prisoners — something that is considered a war crime when done to international prisoners.

The court was quick to claim that four men being housed with other men is cruel, nevermind that with the stroke of their pen they are subjecting thousands of women to even worse cruel and unusual punishment. Women’s involvement in the justice system is largely tied to their experiences of male violence, and as many as 80% of justice-involved women have experienced abuse.

During these hearings, no attorney was present to represent the interests of incarcerated women. By agreeing to keep secret the identities and locations of the Plaintiffs, the court has also cut the affected women off from outside help — help that organizations like WoLF would normally be able to offer.

But we will not stop fighting to protect women from the cruel and unusual punishment of being forced into prison cells with violent, dangerous men.

WoLF has been on the front lines of fighting against “gender identity” policies for over a decade. Although the new administration is taking action to reverse years of harm, these changes will be contested at every step. The time has never been more critical for feminist voices to be heard.