Monroe v. Baldwin

2019 WL 6918474 (2019)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Monroe v. Baldwin

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
2019 WL 6918474 (2019)

Facts

The Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) used a committee to make decisions regarding transgender prisoners, including their medical care, but the committee lacked medical professionals experienced with gender dysphoria or otherwise qualified to treat the condition or its symptoms. The DOC would not provide transgender prisoners with any gender-confirmation surgery and routinely denied transgender prisoners’ requests for increased hormone doses without even testing their current levels. On the few occasions when the DOC did conduct testing, the prisoners’ hormone levels were below therapeutic range. Further, the DOC automatically housed transgender prisoners according to birth sex, allowed male guards to strip-search transgender females, and permitted guards and other prisoners to intentionally use incorrect gender terms and gender slurs when addressing transgender prisoners. The DOC also generally denied transgender female prisoners access to gender-affirming commissary items such as female undergarments, hairbrushes, and makeup. Janiah Monroe (plaintiff), a transgender female incarcerated in an Illinois prison, requested treatment for gender dysphoria but was not even given a diagnosis for four years. Two other transgender prisoners, Sasha Reed and Sora Kuykendall (plaintiffs), also experienced multiyear delays in receiving a diagnosis. During those delays, Reed attempted suicide, and Kuykendall was so distraught that she attempted to castrate herself. Monroe, Reed, Kuykendall, and three other transgender female prisoners (collectively, the prisoners) (plaintiffs) sued DOC director John Baldwin and others (defendants), alleging that the DOC’s treatment of transgender female prisoners violated the Eighth Amendment. The prisoners also sought a preliminary injunction ordering the DOC to adopt policies providing adequate medical care to transgender prisoners. The district court held a two-day hearing on the injunction request. Among the evidence presented was expert testimony that misgendering individuals with gender dysphoria caused psychological trauma and that social transitions, such as access to gender-affirming items and environments, were a key part of treatment for gender dysphoria. No DOC representative attended the hearing or presented any evidence of a medical or penological justification for the DOC’s transgender policies. The district court then considered the prisoners’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rosenstengel, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership