The Supreme Court on October 21 denied an emergency stay in Trump v. Kingdom by a 7-2 vote, leaving in place a lower court injunction against a Bureau of Prisons policy. That policy had concluded that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria. Justices Thomas and Alito noted they would have granted the application; no written opinion accompanied the order.
Writing for Reason, the author argues the denial is notable for what it signals. Justice Kavanaugh's failure to write separately, despite having a free vote in the 7-2 split, suggests he expects the government to lose on the merits. The author also questions Justice Kagan's recent claim that Trump appointees who rule against Trump prove their independence, calling that framing misguided and pointing to Justice Alito's critique of 'insecure originalists' who seek catharsis by ruling against their preferred outcomes.
The author places the case alongside recent transgender-rights rulings—Skrmetti, Mahmoud, B.P.J., and Bostock—noting that Kingdom differs because it involves consenting adults in prison. He also flags the timeline: the application was filed September 28, briefing concluded October 9, and the order came October 21, suggesting possible behind-the-scenes efforts by Thomas and Alito to gather more votes. The author concludes that the Court's two most conservative members being alone in dissent is a more useful metric than praising Trump appointees for opposing the president.