The Supreme Court agreed to toss a lower court ruling in favor of a male inmate who identifies as a woman and wants to be housed in a women’s unit.
On Monday, the high court sent the case back for reconsideration by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in light of recent rulings upholding state restrictions on transgender policies.
The plaintiff in the Colorado case was Darlene Griffith, a male inmate who identifies as a woman. While awaiting trial in the El Paso County jail in 2020, Griffith sued after being housed in the male unit and denied access to women’s items in the commissary such as lipstick and underwear, KRCC reported.
Griffith alleged sexual assault by a male inmate and mistreatment by male deputies.
The Supreme Court threw out a ruling that found a Colorado prison violated a transgender inmate’s rights.
The case involves prison housing, clothing and strip searches. A federal appeals court must now reconsider it. https://t.co/30PfVHGZyI
— The Center Square (@thecentersquare) November 9, 2026
The 10th Circuit ruled in 2025 that the jail’s sex-based housing policy had to meet heightened scrutiny. However, that ruling preceded two major Supreme Court decisions: a 2025 ruling upholding a Tennessee law banning gender-transition treatments for minors, and a 2026 ruling upholding a West Virginia law barring males from girls sports.
The office of El Paso County Sheriff Joseph J. Roybal asked the high court to decide whether such challenges should receive heightened scrutiny.
In Roybal v. Griffith, the high court ordered the lower court to reconsider its ruling in favor of Griffith based on the Supreme Court’s transgender precedents.
The Justice Department cited the two transgender cases as it joined the sheriff in asking the high court to intervene.
“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of West Virginia v. B. P. J., 609 U. S. 958 (2026), and United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U. S. 495 (2025),” the high court’s order said.
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]
