U.S. appeals court blocks placement of trans women in Oregon women’s prisons

A federal appeals court in the United States has intervened in one of the year’s most controversial prison cases. In early August 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit urgently stayed a court order requiring the prison service of the U.S. state of Oregon to place trans women in women’s prisons as a standard practice. The stay puts a temporary hold on a ruling that had been in effect since April and once again puts the question of who is entitled to placement in a women’s prison under the spotlight.

What the judge decided in April

The case began with a lawsuit brought by two incarcerated trans women, who sought to bring a class action on behalf of all trans women in Oregon prisons against the Oregon Department of Corrections. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke largely ruled in their favor in April 2026. His order required the prison service to proceed from “a presumption of placement consistent with each woman’s gender identity, unless there is a documented and demonstrable safety reason” against it. The judge also relied on figures showing that more than ninety percent of the approximately 120 trans women incarcerated in Oregon are housed in men’s prisons.

For the plaintiffs, the order represented a breakthrough: it reversed the burden of proof. From then on, it would not be up to the incarcerated person to demonstrate why she belonged in a women’s prison; instead, the state would have to establish on a case-by-case basis why she should not be placed there.

The appeals court steps in

Oregon appealed and asked the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay pending final consideration of the case. The court granted the state’s request and issued a temporary administrative stay of Clarke’s order. The decision was based on Oregon attorneys’ argument that the order was “vague and overly broad,” and that implementing it would require personal, medical, and identity-related information about incarcerated people to be disclosed without their consent in order to assess each case. A state spokesperson said: “We appreciate the Ninth Circuit's swift action in granting an administrative stay while it considers our motion” — in other words, the state is relieved that the court acted quickly while the appeal is being reviewed.

A more cautious response has come from the plaintiffs’ side. Civil rights attorney John Burgess stressed that the stay does not automatically mean that individual incarcerated people will now be transferred back: “I wouldn't concede at this point that the court order would mandate that any particular person would be moved to Coffee Creek” — he does not want to acknowledge at this stage that the order would have required a specific person to be transferred to the Coffee Creek women’s prison. In other words, the parties still disagree about what exactly the order would have meant in practice.

What happens next

The case has not yet been decided. Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit will take place on August 27, 2026, in Pasadena, California. Only after that will the court issue a substantive ruling on whether Judge Clarke’s order will ultimately stand, be modified, or be overturned. Until then, the previous situation remains in effect: the prison service itself determines where a trans woman is placed, without the presumption in favor of placement based on gender identity imposed in April.

The Oregon case is not occurring in isolation. Multiple lawsuits and federal investigations are currently underway in the United States concerning the placement of trans women in women’s prisons, including in the state of Washington, where the Department of Justice is investigating complaints from female inmates about intimidation by fellow inmates who identify as women. That investigation is described on vrouwenruimtes.nl. At the federal level, the policy direction has also shifted: at the beginning of this year, the federal prison service announced that it would largely stop providing gender-affirming care and social transition support to incarcerated people. Regardless of the outcome, the Oregon case will be cited as a precedent in similar cases elsewhere in the country — and it shows how unresolved the conflict between self-identification and the safety and privacy of female inmates remains in the U.S. justice system. Information on what self-identification means for the prison system, including incidents and placement criteria, is available at genderzorgen.nl.