U.S. Supreme Court slaps down ruling in transgender inmate case

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court slapped down a ruling that said the rights of a transgender inmate in a Colorado prison were violated when the prison did not accommodate the inmate's preferences for treatment. 

Justices on the high court vacated a lower court's ruling in Roybal v. Griffith, a case focused on constitutional protections for transgender inmates in prison. Darlene Griffith, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, was detained in the El Paso County, Colorado, prison in 2020. 

Griffith was placed in a male section of the prison and denied access to lipstick and female undergarments. Griffith was also strip-searched by a male officer, despite requesting a female. Lawyers for Griffith argued the prison's treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. 

A lower federal court agreed that Griffith's rights to equal protection were violated through the prison assignment and failure to provide requested items. The lower court also disagreed with the prison's strip-search policy. 

"The Petition boils down to a plea for 'administrative flexibility and deference,' but prisons receive that regardless of the level of scrutiny applied to equal protection claims; deference in the unique context of prisons is baked into the analysis," lawyers for Griffith wrote to the Supreme Court. 

Justices on the high court rejected the equal protection argument, citing the court's decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. In the court's June decision, the majority of justices agreed that heightened scrutiny must be applied to equal protection claims involving transgender individuals. 

Lawyers for the Trump administration, who submitted a brief in favor of the Colorado prison, argued the high court's precedent on transgender issues showed a need to separate biological males from female activities and spaces. 

"'When a sex-based classification is justified as a constitutional matter' – 'for example,' in 'women’s and girls’ sports' – then a State 'may treat all biological males the same and treat all biological females the same'; it 'is not constitutionally required to grant individualized exemptions to specific [persons] or subclasses,'" Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the high court. 

On Oct. 21, justices declined to block a Biden administration policy that allows transgender prisoners to undergo hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgeries. 

The Trump administration sought to prevent federal funds from going to transgender surgeries for prisoners. During the Biden administration, approximately $1.65 million in taxpayer dollars went to transgender procedures for federal prisoners, according the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Approximately 1,000 federal prisoners identify as transgender, according to the Justice Department. Lawyers for transgender inmates argued that the order was arbitrary and capricious, with implications for civil rights laws regarding transgender people. 

The high court's decision on Monday will place responsibility for the case in the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for further consideration. Monday's decision is the latest in a string of recent cases regarding legal protections for transgender people.