WoLF Files New Opposition Brief To Get Men Out of California Women’s Prisons
Inside WoLF’s landmark legal fight, Chandler v. Macomber
WoLF has taken the next steps in our groundbreaking legal battle to get men out of California women’s prisons. The case, Chandler v. Macomber (formerly Chander v. CDCR), centers on six women incarcerated in California who have all faced harm by being forced to live, work, and share private, intimate spaces with men who claim to be women.
WoLF’s new Opposition to Motion to Dimiss was filed last week in response to the latest attempts by the state and trans activists such as the ACLU to have our case thrown out under the blatantly false premise that these men are not a unique threat in women’s prisons. But WoLF is fighting back every step of the way, continuing to step up and challenge the massive, well-funded pro-trans organizations that are working hard to silence incarcerated women.
About SB 132, the “Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act”
S.B. 132, enacted in 2021, mandates that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) allow incarcerated men who self-identify as women (or “nonbinary”) to be housed in women’s facilities if they prefer. The law makes it difficult to exclude men for things such as history of sexual violence, and over 33% of men transferred into women’s prisons under SB 132 are convicted sex offenders. Since its enactment, incarcerated women have faced threats, assaults, and harassment, undermining their safety and constitutional rights.
Meet the Plaintiffs
For the past three years, WoLF has been representing several women who have suffered from this policy and seek to overturn SB 132. The plaintiffs in this case are: Janine Chandler, Krystal Gonzalez, Tomiekia Johnson, Nadia Romero, Channel Johnson, and Cathleen Quinn. These women come from a diverse range of backgrounds, religions, and experiences but they all have one thing in common — they have all been directly harmed by men with whom they were forced to live in prison under SB 132.
WoLF’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Risk to Female Inmates: SB 132 endangers women by allowing male inmates, some with histories of sexual violence, to transfer to women’s facilities.
“Of the 26.2% of female inmates who were victims of inmate-on-inmate violence, nearly 19% of assaults were perpetrated by trans-identifying biological males. This is an overwhelmingly disproportionate percentage.” (pg. 14)
Eighth Amendment Violations
SB 132 violates the Eighth Amendment (protection from cruel and unusual punishment) by exposing women to a substantial risk of harm, emphasizing cases of assaults, harassment, and trauma resulting from these placements.
“As admitted by the Inspector General, under S.B. 132 even an inmate with a history of raping women can not be prevented from transferring to a female facility upon request.” (pg. 14)
First Amendment Concerns: Female inmates' religious freedoms and free speech rights are violated when they are compelled to live and undress around male inmates, and refer to them as women.
“Plaintiffs Romero and Gonzalez were punished for “misgendering,” there was no suggestion that either intended to offend or harass anyone… Plaintiffs should not be forced to parrot the government’s message regarding gender identity. ” (pg. 18 - 19)
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection: SB 132 fails to treat female inmates equally by prioritizing trans-identifying male inmates’ housing preferences, often at the expense of women’s safety and well-being.
“S.B. 132 created a tiered preference system within the CDCR which, on paper, primarily benefits trans-identifying biological males. In practice, S.B. 132’s policies are being exploited by biological males who claim to be transgender only on a piece of paper to gain carte blanche access to female facilities.” (pg. 1)
“This has, predictably, led to ‘a lot of men who are now all of a sudden transgender.’” (pg. 14)
Relief Sought: We seek to halt SB 132’s current implementation and revert to prior protocols.
“S.B. 132 fails equal protection analysis because it serves no legitimate penological purpose. More to the point, this policy was not created by prison officials to address a problem in the system. This policy came from a legislature seeking to score political points on a pet issue.” (pg. 25)
Support WoLF’s Groundbreaking Legal Work!
WoLF is the only feminist organization bringing lawsuits to overturn bills like SB 132. We rely entirely on our generous donors to make this resource-intensive legal work possible.
Please consider supporting WoLF to help fund work like this case and the brave women fighting for their rights inside California’s prisons. Become a monthly donor for an amount as low as $5/month and get a gift from WoLF!
Or, make a one-time donation here.
Note: Many of our supporters choose to give from their assets—stock gifts, grants from Donor-Advised funds, or Qualified Charitable Distributions from their IRA. Please consider if these “tax-smart” methods work better for you!
