Litigation on Gender Confirmation Surgery and Hormonal Therapy among Trans Women Prisoners

Views from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals

Bibliographic Data

ID20394105
AuthorsClaire Nolasco Braaten (0000-0002-4391-4908, Department of Social Sciences, Criminology Program, Texas A&M University-San Antonio, One University Way, San Antonio, Texas, USA, corresponding author), Michael S Vaughn (0000-0002-0874-5790, Sam Houston State University)
Year2022
Volume32
Issue1-2
Pages163-184
Publication date2022-03-04
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueWomen & Criminal Justice (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0897-4454 • E-ISSN: 1541-0323
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/08974454.2021.1962481
OpenAlexW3193617326
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited58

This article analyzes U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals’ cases involving Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 actions filed by trans women inmates against corrections and/or medical officers for failure to provide hormone therapy and/or gender confirmation surgery (“GCS”) (N = 24). The courts varied in their decisions. The Ninth Circuit has been more progressive toward trans rights, holding that GCS can be medically necessary depending on the individualized needs of the transgender inmate because there is a medical consensus on the appropriateness of these treatments. The First and Fifth Circuits rejected requests for GCS because of the lack of medical consensus on the necessity of GCS. Both the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits held that failure to provide medically recommended care for a non-medical reason and unexplained delays in treatment can constitute deliberate indifference, violating the Eighth Amendment. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, prison officials are not deliberately indifferent for failing to provide hormone treatments

Eleventh · Ninth · Political science · Prison · Feminist Theory and Gender Studies · Law · LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy · Medicine · Psychology · Reproductive Health and Technologies

Tools

Open DOI