{"id":2482999,"date":"2025-09-05T17:49:01","date_gmt":"2025-09-05T21:49:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-court-panel-grills-doj-over-trump-order-restricting-prisons-by-biological-sex\/"},"modified":"2025-09-05T17:51:27","modified_gmt":"2025-09-05T21:51:27","slug":"appeals-court-panel-grills-doj-over-trump-order-restricting-prisons-by-biological-sex","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/appeals-court-panel-grills-doj-over-trump-order-restricting-prisons-by-biological-sex\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals court panel grills DOJ over Trump order restricting prisons by biological sex"},"content":{"rendered":"

26<\/div>SHARES<\/span><\/div>

<\/span>Facebook<\/span><\/a><\/span>Twitter<\/span><\/a>

The article discusses a federal appeals court hearing<\/a> regarding a Trump management executive order that mandates housing prisoners based on biological sex rather than gender identity.Specifically, the order directs that biologically male inmates who identify as women be placed in male prisons. A group of transgender prisoners, all biological males identifying as women, filed a lawsuit challenging this policy.<\/p>\n

Earlier, a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Bureau of Prisons from transferring these inmates to male facilities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued before a three-judge panel that this injunction should be overturned, asserting that housing inmates by biological sex protects the safety and privacy of female prisoners and adheres to constitutional guidelines.<\/p>\n

The appeals court judges questioned the DOJ on legal technicalities, including whether the transfers could be reviewed judicially under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and if the inmates had fatigued administrative remedies before suing. The DOJ contended that enforcing the injunction harms female inmates’ dignity and safety. Meanwhile, the transgender prisoners’ lawyers emphasized that moving their clients to male prisons would violate their constitutional rights by exposing them to serious risks of harm.<\/p>\n

The panel did not issue a decision during the hearing, and no timeline was provided. This case is part of a broader series of legal challenges against Trump’s early executive orders<\/a>, many of which remain unresolved in courts months after they were issued.

\n<\/p>\n

\n