Doe v. McHenry

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 7, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0286
• Status: Published

Opinion

custody" and posited that, "[g]iven the rarity of such placements within the federal system, it is

reasonable to infer that [the Bureau's] decisions to house plaintiffs in women's facilities are the

product of deliberate, individualized determinations rather than happenstance." Id. at 918. On

appeal, Plaintiffs argued that they had "particular vulnerabilities" that distinguish them from other

transgender women in the Bureau's custody-including "long-term hormone therapy and surgeries

effecting gendered physical alterations, prior history of sexual assault or self-harm in men's

facilities, or a combination of such factors." Id. at 916.

While acknowledging that the record "contains ample, uncontested evidence" of

characteristics that could niake Plaintiffs "distinctively vulnerable to harm in men's facilities," the

Circuit held that it could not conclude that the Bureau had been deliberately indifferent to such

harm without individualized findings as to each Plaintiffs' particular vulnerabilities. Id. at 917.

Although this Court had "generally identified" certain "distinctive characteristics" that could cause

a transgender woman to face "substantial risks of serious harm" upon transfer to a men's prison,

the Circuit directed the Court on remand to make factual determinations as to the features of the

Doe Plaintiffs "in particular" that "render their transfer to men's facilities unconstitutional under

the Eighth Amendment." Id. at 910, 917.

On May 13, 2026, Plaintiffs moved again for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction, this time submitting individualized evidence of the substantial risk transfer would pose

to each plaintiff. ECF Nos. 117-1 to 117-28. This motion became ripe on June 6, 2026, see Opp'n,

ECF No. 129, Reply, ECF No. 135, and the Circuit's mandate will issue June 8, 2026. 2

2 The injunction on appeal was renewed on Februaty 19, 2026, and was set to automatically expire on May 20, 2026. ECF No. 101; see 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Although the Circuit released its opinion on April 17, 2026, the mandate will not issue until June 8, 2026, per Rule 40(d)(l) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Prncedure. That meapt that tile operative preliminary inj1lllction would have expired by its own terms before it was fommlly vacated by the Circuit. The Court therefore renewed the existing preliminary injunction for the limited period of May 21, 2026, to June 8, 2026. ECF No. 125.

3 44