WASHINGTON, D.C. – Attorney General Todd Rokita, together with Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and a coalition of 24 states, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals strongly arguing that the Eighth Amendment does not require states to provide prisoners with risky, controversial, and medically debated sex-change surgeries.
The case, Emalee R. Wagoner v. Jennifer Winkelman, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (No. 25-6813), arises from an order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska directing the state to refer the prisoner for surgical consultation. The multi-state brief argues that this ruling exceeds constitutional limits and overrides states’ authority over prison medical care and policy, so the decision should be reversed.
According to Attorney General Rokita, Indiana is co-leading this brief because a ruling upholding the order could create a nationwide precedent. That would pressure prison systems across the country—including in Indiana—to provide or pay for similar surgeries, even though many states do not offer them to inmates or even to free citizens.
“The Eighth Amendment stops cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn’t give prisoners the right to demand risky, optional surgeries when doctors and scientists still strongly disagree about whether they’re safe or even helpful,” said Attorney General Rokita. “If courts force states to provide these expensive, controversial procedures in one prison, it will open the floodgates everywhere—putting Hoosier taxpayers and families across the country on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars per surgery in virtually every state. We cannot let that happen. We have to win this case to protect hardworking taxpayers from footing the bill for these insane surgeries.”
The brief stresses that the Eighth Amendment bars deliberate indifference to serious medical needs but does not guarantee prisoners access to any particular treatment—especially those that are unproven, highly debated, and carry significant risks with uncertain benefits.
It notes that such surgeries are unavailable to free citizens in nearly half of U.S. states, underscoring that they are not a basic necessity. The amici also contend that prior Ninth Circuit case law does not require these procedures, and mandating out-of-state prisoner transfers for unavailable care raises major federalism issues and conflicts with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
The coalition asks the Ninth Circuit to vacate the district court’s injunction and affirm states’ discretion in managing prisoner healthcare and corrections.
Attached is the brief in defense of President Trump’s executive order.
