Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.

In an unsigned order on Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s request for permission to implement what is, even by the Trump administration’s standards, a remarkably barbaric element of its anti-trans agenda: a blanket denial of gender-affirming healthcare to transgender people in federal prison for the first time in three decades. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted their dissent, because for them, nothing is more important than their solemn duty to give their favorite president whatever he wants.

Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping anti-trans executive order aimed at purging the government of “gender ideology.” This case, Trump v. Kingdom, is a legal challenge to guidance issued by the Bureau of Prisons that would effectuate the part of Trump’s order forbidding the use of federal funds for “any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” Needless to say, losing access to care was devastating for incarcerated transgender people, who in court filings described experiencing anxiety, panic attacks, and suicidal ideation as a result of their suddenly untreated gender dysphoria. The policy of providing these inmates with the medical care they need has been in place since the first Bush administration.

Fortunately for anyone who believes that the state should not have the power to torture people in its custody, lower-court judges have repeatedly blocked the new guidance from taking effect. By electing to leave these orders in place, the Supreme Court indicated that, although it has been willing to sympathize with the anti-trans movement in many other contexts, sanctioning the denial of lifesaving care to incarcerated people is, at least for now, a proverbial bridge too far. By putting their disagreement on the record, Thomas and Alito are making clear that they are as eager as ever to drag the court across it.

The justices do not always make their votes........

© Slate