SCOTUS says trans inmate's rights were not violated when he was denied makeup, women's underwear

The justices struck down a lower court’s ruling that the rights of inmate Darlene Griffith, who is a trans-identified male, to equal protection had been violated. The ruling was vacated and the case was handed down to the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for further consideration “in light of” the court’s decisions in West Virginia v BJP and United States v Skrmetti, other trans-related cases.

In July of 2020, Griffith entered the jail system in El Paso County, Colorado, as a pretrial detainee and identified as a “transgender female.” He had “changed her name, altered her physical appearance to appear female, and taken feminizing hormones, which caused Griffith to develop breasts.” Griffith, however, still possessed male reproductive anatomy.

Griffith had requested to be housed with women, but the request was denied. The petition to the court stated, “The deputies declined Griffith’s request because the County generally makes custodial assignments based on an inmate’s or detainee’s genitals.”

“As a result of Griffith’s male housing assignment, she alleges she did not have access to feminine products from the jail’s commissary, including lipstick, women’s underwear, and a sports bra,” the petition stated. “Griffith further alleges she needed access to these products, including ‘panties and lipstick,’ to ‘conform with her [female] gender identity.’”

The petition stated that “Permitting vulnerable biologically male detainees, who identify as female, to have articles that make them appear more ‘feminine’ increases the risk of violence and harassment.”

As part of the intake process, Griffith underwent a visual body-cavity inspection. Griffith requested a female officer for the strip search. Two deputies ultimately performed the search, with a female deputy carrying out the search above the waist, and a male deputy carrying out the rest of the search.

Griffith sued, citing violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case made its way to the Tenth Circuit, which sided with Griffith.

Lawyers for the Trump administration filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the court should “grant the petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand for further consideration in light of B.P.J. and Skrmetti.”

"'When a sex-based classification is justified as a constitutional matter' – 'for example,' in 'women’s and girls’ sports' – then a State 'may treat all biological males the same and treat all biological females the same'; it 'is not constitutionally required to grant individualized exemptions to specific [persons] or subclasses,'" Solicitor General D John Sauer wrote in the brief.