A federal appeals court has removed the statewide restrictions that had governed how Oregon decides where transgender women in prison are housed, returning the Department of Corrections to its case-by-case placement process while two inmates’ constitutional claims continue in federal court.
In a Sept. 17 opinion, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction and directed the trial court to decertify a provisional statewide class. The injunction had required Oregon to begin each housing review with a presumption in favor of placement consistent with an inmate’s gender identity unless officials documented a specific security reason for another placement. It also imposed rules covering showers, searches, abuse reporting and mental-health support.
The panel concluded that the record did not support the trial court’s finding that Oregon corrections officials used a blanket presumption placing transgender women in men’s prisons. The opinion said the state had presented undisputed records showing individualized decisions, including that 26 of 117 transgender women in custody had requested placement at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, the state’s women’s prison, and eight were housed there when the evidence was submitted. A separate case summary confirms that the ruling turned on the evidentiary basis for classwide preliminary relief.
The record described a centralized review process that considers medical and mental-health history, self-identification, behavior, and safety for the person requesting placement, other adults in custody and staff. New arrivals who identify as transgender, nonbinary, gender-fluid or intersex are assessed shortly after entering custody and reviewed by a committee before a longer-term assignment, according to declarations cited by the panel.
The decision does not resolve the underlying lawsuit or declare Oregon’s placement system constitutional. The two plaintiffs alleged that their housing exposed them to a substantial risk of sexual and physical violence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case, filed in September 2025, also raised claims tied to medical care, disability law and the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act, according to the case record maintained by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Those individual claims can proceed in U.S. District Court.
That distinction matters for Oregon’s prisons. The state no longer must follow the now-vacated presumption or the accompanying classwide mandates while the litigation continues, but corrections officials remain responsible for protecting people in custody from known substantial risks. The appellate panel’s ruling addressed whether the demanding standard for a mandatory preliminary injunction had been met, not whether either plaintiff ultimately can prove an Eighth Amendment violation.
Oregon Capital Chronicle reported that the state Justice Department agreed with the outcome but objected to language in the opinion that it considered harmful. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would continue pursuing the case and argued that current prison conditions still place transgender women at serious risk. Those opposing positions will now return to the trial court without the statewide injunction in force.
