Another Judicial Overreach: Judge Wants Men Back In Women's Prisons

It appears even prison walls can't stop the transgender agenda from affecting women inmates.

On January 20, President Donald Trump signed one of the first executive orders (EO) of his second term, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." This decisive decree not only cemented the recognition of only two genders in America but addressed biological men masquerading as women in female prisons. 

Additionally, it sought to end the taxpayer-funded gender procedures these men were undergoing. Upon signing the order, men occupying these female spaces were promptly transferred back to male prisons.

But on Wednesday, in a move conservatives have deemed as major "judicial overreach," a federal judge blocked Trump's EO. As part of this ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to "immediately" place men back into women's prisons. More than that, Lamberth declared that the trans-identifying criminals must be allowed to resume the taxpayer-funded hormone therapy treatments to continue their gender transitions.

According to The Post Millennial, "The two transgender plaintiffs ... claimed in the complaint that they had been living in constant fear of sexual violence after being transferred to male prisons." They also claimed that "male prison guards conducted strip searches without female officers present and male prisoners had allegedly propositioned them for sex." In his ruling, Lamberth wrote, "The fact that they have already been transferred and, allegedly, have been abused at their new facilities can only strengthen their claims of irreparable harm."

However, the reporters also pointed out that while Lamberth was quick to listen to the cries of the trans-identifying inmates, he doesn't appear as eager to address the biological women who claim to be sexual assault victims themselves. For example, a recent lawsuit filed by a former female inmate "claimed that she was sexually abused by a male prisoner who was transferred into her cell after he claimed to identify as a woman." 

That man, Christopher Williams, is a convicted pedophile also guilty of "brutally beating his ex-girlfriend." Despite this history, The Post Millennial wrote, "The state prison placed Williams in a cell with female inmates, where he allegedly went on to re-offend."

Records show that there are numerous cases like this, in which women have fallen prey to trans-identifying men abusing their access to female prisons. As such, Lamberth's ruling has caused quite a stir in the movement to protect women and girls from trans ideology, and observers say his ruling appears to be another example of women's safety being compromised at the expense of judicial activism. In fact, Lamberth's decision is one of many that have been in direct defiance to President Trump's EO's.

As The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh addressed on a recent episode of "The Matt Walsh Show," "These judges are not the president." It's a "very basic point," he said. "These judges are not the president, which means there must be some powers that the president has that the judges don't. ... If the judges can just override anything Trump does with the stroke of a pen, then the judges are," in fact, acting as though they are the president.

"You know what the Constitution says?" Walsh asked. "The Constitution says that the branches of the government are co-equal -- separate, but equal ... which means that judges cannot supersede the president in every case." Furthermore, Walsh explained that "none of these judges were voted into office to set policy. None of these people were voted into office at all." 

Rather, they were appointed. As such, "These are unelected judges trying to override not just the president but the will of the people -- the people who voted for Trump so that he would put policies like this in place."

"At this point," Walsh argued, "they're trying to upend the Constitution and our entire system of government." He insisted that "there needs to be an all-out war ... against activist judges," which begins by "drawing the line in the sand and saying, 'Okay, the judges have certain powers, certain responsibilities, a certain jurisdiction. But their powers and jurisdiction do not encompass everything.'" This line, he added, establishes "what judges are allowed to do," and "anything over that line we are not going to listen to. We are just going to ignore it."

Family Research Council's Meg Kilgannon also drew attention back to the fact that, at the end of the day, these actions coming from federal judges are putting women in harm's way. "Matthew 25 is very clear about our responsibilities for the imprisoned," she told The Washington Stand. "Women jailed with men have no ability to speak for themselves. Only we can do that. There is no way for them to avoid the situation." Ultimately, she underscored, "No matter the reason for incarceration, respect for human dignity requires a prison environment free of predation and conflict."

"Respect for human dignity" does not involve "supporting the delusion that one can be born in the wrong body," Kilgannon said. Additionally, "Taxpayers should not be required to finance sex change procedures for inmates on the grounds that it is medically necessary." Lamberth's ruling, she argues, is "yet another example of judicial overreach that insults President Trump, the voters, and common sense and decency."

Originally published at The Washington Stand