The filing in Washington, D.C., framed as Poe v. U.S. Department of Justice, puts the spotlight on a December 2026 memorandum that the plaintiff and her legal team say effectively removed important safety rules for transgender people behind bars. The complaint was brought by the National Center for LGBTQ Rights on behalf of Paulina Poe, a transgender woman housed in a men’s facility, and argues that the Justice Department overstepped legal bounds when it told correctional systems and auditors to “disregard” certain provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations. The complaint relies on the Administrative Procedure Act as the vehicle to challenge that internal directive.
Those challenging the memo emphasize the long history and intent of the relevant rules: Congress passed PREA unanimously in 2003 to address rampant sexual violence, and the Department of Justice finalized implementing standards in 2012 after extensive study and public comment. Advocates point to decades of case law and research, including the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Farmer v. Brennan, to show that federal protections for transgender people in custody are both long-standing and grounded in documented risk. The complaint seeks to reinstate nationwide enforcement of the PREA provisions the DOJ memo instructed officials to ignore.
What the December 2026 memo did and why critics call it unlawful
The December 2026 DOJ memorandum did not change the text of the rules through notice-and-comment rulemaking; instead, it told PREA-certified auditors to stop evaluating compliance with transgender-specific provisions and instructed prisons to treat those provisions as if they were moot. Plaintiffs say this internal direction is not a permitted method for rescinding or suspending a binding regulation. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), substantive regulatory changes must follow a public procedure, and the lawsuit argues the DOJ’s action is a classic example of an agency sidestepping that process. The complaint asks a federal court to declare the memo unlawful as a final agency action taken without the required procedures.
Which protections are at stake
The contested portions of the PREA rules were adopted with explicit attention to the heightened vulnerability of transgender people in custody. Among the protections are mandatory screening to identify risk factors, requirements to make housing choices on an individualized safety assessment or case-by-case basis, options for separate showering and privacy measures, prohibitions on invasive searches performed solely to determine genital anatomy, and staff training on respectful and least-intrusive practices. The PREA Resource Center and multiple studies have recognized transgender status as a major predictor of sexual victimization, and the rules were designed to mitigate that known risk.
Legal remedy sought and how the case is framed
Plaintiffs ask the court to set aside the DOJ memorandum, enjoin its implementation, and require the department to notify correctional facilities that the PREA regulations remain fully binding. The complaint stresses that the department never formally repealed or amended the rules as Executive Order 14168—signed on January 20, 2026—directed agencies to pursue. Instead, the government issued a memo that left the regulatory text intact while telling practitioners to ignore certain provisions. Lawyers for the plaintiff contend that this approach cannot stand under the APA and ask the court to restore enforcement nationwide.
How this fits into a broader policy effort
The lawsuit situates the memorandum within a wider set of executive actions affecting transgender recognition across federal programs, including matters related to passports, military service, health care, education, and data collection. Legal teams note that other courts already have blocked aspects of the administration’s prison policies in separate cases, including orders preventing transfers of some transgender women into men’s facilities and temporary restraints on limits to gender-affirming care. Still, advocates say the PREA-related challenge is broader because it targets wholesale suspension of protections that apply to many incarcerated transgender people, not only those involved in transfer disputes.
Why the outcome matters
For advocates and the plaintiff, the stakes are concrete: federal data and peer-reviewed research show transgender people in custody are assaulted at dramatically higher rates than the general incarcerated population, and the contested rules were crafted to reduce that harm. The complaint argues that without enforceable PREA standards that require individualized assessments and privacy protections, the risk of sexual victimization will rise. Represented by law firms and civil rights groups including GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C., the case presses the court to affirm that agencies cannot erase binding protections by internal memo and must follow the legal processes spelled out by Congress and the APA.