National
9th Circuit: Gender reassignment surgery must be granted to trans inmates
Court rules denying procedure violates 8th Amendment
Denying gender reassignment surgery to transgender prison inmates is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the per curiam decision on the basis that gender reassignment surgery is medically necessary, so denying the procedure to prison inmates violates the Eighth Amendment.
“We hold that where, as here, the record shows that the medically necessary treatment for a prisoner’s gender dysphoria is gender confirmation surgery, and responsible prison officials deny such treatment with full awareness of the prisoner’s suffering, those officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,” the decision says.
The three-judge panel that issued the ruling consists of U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee; U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, another Clinton appointee; and U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik, another Clinton appointee sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit.
The ruling affirms taxpayer funds will be used to provide gender reassignment surgery to Adree Edmo, who’s transgender and has been an inmate in the Idaho State Correctional Institution since 2012. Edmo has been ever since she pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a 15-year-old male at a house party.
Edmo doesn’t have access to her personal funds while she’s incarcerated. The estimated cost of male-to-female gender reassignment surgery can be more than $100,000.
Medical providers have documented Edmo’s feminine presentation since 2012 and she has testified she “continues to actively think about self-castration” in prison, according to the Ninth Circuit decision.
“I am relieved and grateful the court recognized my right to necessary medical treatment, and that I will get the surgery I need,” Edmo said in a statement. “I hope my case helps the State of Idaho understand that they can’t deny medical care to transgender people.”
The case came to the Ninth Circuit upon appeal after U.S. Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmil in Idaho issued a decision ordering the state to grant gender reassignment surgery to Edmo, who sued the state in 2017 after the Idaho Department of Corrections refused to great her the procedure.
“Although we addressed this appeal on an expedited basis, it has been more than a year since doctors concluded that GCS is medically necessary for Edmo,” the Ninth Circuit decision says. “We urge the state to move forward. We emphatically do not speak to other cases, but the facts of this case call for expeditious effectuation of the injunction.”
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Winmill’s order with respect to granting gender reassignment surgery to Edmo, but remanded to the trial court a separate with respect to whether Corizon, Inc., a private for-profit corporation that provides health care to inmates in Idaho prisons, should be included in the injunction.
The Ninth Circuit is now the only federal appeals court with a standing ruling ordering gender reassignment surgery. Although a three-judge panel on the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the procedure in 2014, the full court later reversed that decision.
Representing Edmo in the case was the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which noted the significance of the decision after it was handed down.
“One of the foundational principles of our Constitution is that the State cannot subject people in its custody to cruel and unusual punishment, including by failing to treat serious medical conditions,” NCLR Senior Staff Attorney Amy Whelan said in a statement. “This ruling is in line not only with long-standing medical evidence, but also with legal rulings across the country that it is dangerous and unconstitutional to deny transgender people access to medically necessary care in prison.”
The Washington Blade has placed a request in with the Boise-based law firm Moore Elia Kraft & Hall, LLP, which is representing the Idaho Department of Corrections, to seek comment on whether the state will seek an “en banc” rehearing before the Ninth Circuit or take up the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue of whether transgender inmates are entitled to gender reassignment surgery has been percolating for some time and has dogged Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who as attorney general represented the California Department of Corrections in seeking to deny the procedure to two inmates.
As media scrutiny of the cases grew, Harris helped the California Department of Corrections reach an agreement in which to set up a process where transgender inmates could obtain transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery. Both of the transgender inmates in those cases were able to obtain gender reassignment surgery, one through the state health care system after obtaining parole.
It should be noted Harris didn’t seek to the agreement to grant transgender inmates gender reassignment surgery until after a court already ordered one the transgender inmates be granted the procedure. At least one transgender advocate in California has also said the California Department of Correction has built a reputation for not fulfilling the agreement reached on behalf of transgender inmates.
Harris, in a statement provided to the Washington Blade from her presidential campaign, said she supports the Ninth Circuit decision in the Edmo case.
“This ruling rightly reaffirms the right to adequate and comprehensive health care, including transition-related care for those at correctional facilities,” Harris said. “Everyone deserves access to compassionate and comprehensive care.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams
In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Community comes together to repair WorldPride history exhibition
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Longtime DC resident Thomas Walsh dies at 87
Upwards of 100K people march in Budapest Pride
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
Pragmatic presidents invest in America
