We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
TRANSGENDERISM ISN’T DONE GASPING
Last Thursday, I wrote the obituary for the Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender policy. As Lee Corso (whose prognostications haven’t been so hot lately, having picked Texas over Ohio State in the CFP semifinal and Notre Dame over the Buckeyes in the championship game) might correctly say, “Not so fast, my friend”).
Only a few hours after my post, a federal district court in Massachusetts unsealed a case filed the prior Sunday and issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of an unnamed transgender male-to-female inmate ordering the BOP not to move the plaintiff to a male prison or deny him access to transitioning drugs and surgery.
The plaintiff claimed the impending transfer to a men’s prison violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and deprives him of transitioning healthcare in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
At the same time, three transgender male-to-female federal prisoners sued last Thursday in Washington, D.C., to block Trump’s order. Their attorneys said they had all been placed in their facilities’ Special Housing Units (“SHUs”) in preparation for transfer to a male prison but had later been returned to general population, although they have been warned they still face imminent transfer.
The complaint argues Trump’s order was driven by “hostility towards transgender people.” President Trump hostile toward a particular group of people? Hard to imagine…
In my prior post, I noted that on January 25, 2025, the BOP reported having 1,529 male prisoners claiming to be transgender females and 744 female prisoners claiming to be transgender males. Lucky I checked when I did: that information, however, was purged from the BOP website last Friday, along with any use of the g-word (gender). The BOP web page originally titled “Inmate Gender” was relabeled “Inmate Sex” on Friday.
Meanwhile, the parties in the Fleming v. Pistro litigation asked for and got more time to set out their position on whether the case was mooted by Trump’s order. At the same time, a transgender male-to-female inmate – one Peter Langen (who now goes by the name “Donna”) – moved to intervene in the Fleming litigation. Langen complained that Rhonda Fleming
has already filed a similar case against transgender prisoners herself and by proxy. The Movant is being unduley burndened [sic] by this Plaintiff once more, it is only fair to allow the Movant a seat at the table when issues that directly impact’ her and other similarly situated Movants.
The Movant as a prisoner in the same prison system that the plaintiff was in (Plaintiff now resides in a Halfway house) and as a person who has been falsely accused of misconduct by this Plaintiff I am in a unique position to give input to this Court as a trier of the facts in this case.
The Court was not impressed, denying the motion in a terse order holding that the 11th-hour (maybe 12th hour) motion arrived after he had decided the case: The Court ruled that the “case applied only “to Ms. Fleming. Accordingly, Ms. Langan has no right to intervene. Likewise, permissive intervention is also inappropriate, especially given that this Court has already entered judgment.”
Order Following Bench Trial (ECF 176), Fleming v. Pistro, Case No. 4:21-cv-325 (January 17, 2025)
Order Denying Motion to Intervene (ECF 180), Fleming v. Pistro, Case No. 4:21-cv-325 (January 28, 2025)
White House, Defending Women from Gender Ideology and Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (January 20, 2025)
Reuters, Transgender inmate sues over Trump’s order curtailing LGBT rights (January 27, 2025)
WUSA-TV, Transgender inmates sue to block Trump order that would force move to men’s prison (January 31, 2025)
Associated Press, Health Data and Entire Web Pages are Wiped From Federal Websites (January 31, 2025)
– Thomas L. Root