Federal Court Partially Enjoins Enforcement of Georgia’s S.B. 185 Prohibiting Gender-Affirming Health Care in DOC
by Matt Clarke
On December 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted partial final judgment to the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the Georgia Department of Corrections (DOC) for its implementation of Senate Bill (S.B.) 185, a state law prohibiting the use of state funds to provide gender-affirming care to DOC prisoners.
The court permanently enjoined the DOC requiring it—regardless of S.B. 185’s provisions—to immediately make available hormone therapy treatment to class members previously receiving it and evaluate for hormone therapy prisoners who identify as transgender, request it, and were not previously receiving it.
On May 8, 2025, Georgia enacted S.B. 185, codified as O.C.G.A. § 42-5-2(e)(1), which prohibits the use of state funds or resources in providing gender-affirming treatment to DOC prisoners who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, including surgeries, cosmetic procedures, prosthetics, and hormones (except to transition off hormone therapy).
Aided by attorneys Amanda Kay Seals and Matthew R. Sellers of Bondurant, Mixson and Elmore in Atlanta, and Emily C. R. Early, A. Chinyere Ezie, Celine Zhu and D. Korbin Felder of the Center for Constitutional Rights, five Georgia prisoners who identify as transgender filed a federal civil rights action against DOC Commissioner Tyrone Oliver, DOC Statewide Medical Director Dr. Marlah Mardis and Centurion of Georgia, the contracted private-entity provider of health care to DOC prisoners.
The lawsuit sought class-action status and alleged that the failure to provide care that had been deemed medically necessary by healthcare providers violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The lawsuit requested preliminary and permanent injunctions and declaratory relief.
At a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs presented evidence on gender dysphoria and the medically necessary and recommended treatment for it. The DOC chose not to present any medical evidence, relying on the fact that it was required to follow state law.
The court noted that gender dysphoria was recognized in the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (DSM-V) as a psychological diagnosis and the psychiatric term for the severe and unremitting pain caused by a long-term marked incongruence between a person’s biological sex and expressed gender, which included certain diagnostic characteristics.
The recommended treatment is set out by the somewhat controversial World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). The DOC’s treatment policy mirrored WPATH’s prior to S.B. 185. Further, medical experts testified that the hormone treatment was medically necessary as untreated gender dysphoria posed a substantial risk of serious physical and mental harm and discontinuing hormone therapy also posed substantial health risks.
The court granted provisional class certification and a preliminary injunction requiring the DOC to provide hormone therapy to prisoners who were receiving it prior to the enactment of S.B. 185. It also enjoined the DOC to, on request, evaluate for hormone treatment any prisoner who identifies as transgender and was not previously receiving it.
Because the DOC presented no contravening medical evidence, the court said it would consider making the injunction permanent on its own motion. See: Benjamin v. Oliver, 800 F.Supp.3d 1314 (N.D. Ga. 2025). Subsequently, it issued the permanent injunction. See: Benjamin v. Comm’r, 812 F.Supp. 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2025).
The issues regarding other transgender treatment such as surgery, prosthetics, permanent hair removal, gender-specific clothing and grooming items and social transition care remain unresolved by the court.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Benjamin v. Comm’r
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 812 F.Supp. 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2025) |
| Level | District Court |