Robinson v. Labrador, 747 F.Supp.3d 1331

Plaintiffs are two transgender women incarcerated in Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) facilities, diagnosed with gender dysphoria and prescribed hormone therapy.
Idaho enacted Idaho Code § 18-8901 (the "Act"), effective July 1, 2024, prohibiting the use of public funds for medical interventions to alter an individual's appearance to affirm gender identity inconsistent with biological sex.
Plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary injunction, and provisional class certification, arguing the Act violates their Eighth Amendment rights by denying necessary medical care.
The court initially granted a TRO, then held hearings and permitted discovery to further develop the record particularly on class certification.
The defendants consist of various Idaho state officials (the "State Defendants") and Centurion, the prison healthcare provider (which did not oppose the motion).
The present order grants a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Act (as to hormone therapy for gender dysphoria) and certifies a class of similarly situated incarcerated individuals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preliminary Injunction: Serious Questions	Hormone therapy is medically necessary; denial risks harm	The Act sets the standard of care; state may regulate	Serious legal questions are raised; favors injunction
Irreparable Harm	Loss of hormone therapy causes imminent, significant injury	Plaintiffs' affidavits insufficient; no qualified testimony	Plaintiffs made sufficient showing of harm
Balance of Equities/Public Interest	Withholding care is harmful and contrary to IDOC past policy	No articulated burden to defendants or public interest issue	Equities/public interest favor plaintiffs
Class Certification	Satisfies numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy	Class not sufficiently numerous or typical; premature motion	All Rule 23 requirements met; class certified

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court established deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as an Eighth Amendment violation)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court set the test for preliminary injunctive relief)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court clarified Rule 23 class certification requirements)
Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (Ninth Circuit on class certification for prison conditions claims)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (Ninth Circuit expounded on typicality/commonality for class actions)
Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (Ninth Circuit articulated typicality standards for class actions)
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court explained typicality and adequacy in class actions)
Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal., 840 F.2d 701 (Ninth Circuit on irreparable harm in the context of injunctions)
Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (Supreme Court affirmed classwide injunctive relief for prisoners' Eighth Amendment claims)