Attorney General Todd Rokita announced on Mar. 26 that he is co-leading a coalition of states in filing an amicus curiae brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief argues that the Eighth Amendment does not require states to provide prisoners with sex-change surgeries, which are described as risky and medically debated.
The issue arises from the case Emalee R. Wagoner v. Jennifer Winkelman, Commissioner of Department of Corrections (No. 25-6813), where a U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ordered the state to refer a prisoner for surgical consultation related to gender transition. The multi-state brief contends this order exceeds constitutional limits and infringes upon states’ authority over prison medical care and policy.
Rokita said Indiana is co-leading this effort because if the district court’s ruling stands, it could set a precedent requiring prison systems nationwide—including Indiana’s—to provide or pay for such surgeries, even though many states do not offer them to inmates or free citizens. “The Eighth Amendment stops cruel and unusual punishment. It doesn’t give prisoners the right to demand risky, optional surgeries when doctors and scientists still strongly disagree about whether they’re safe or even helpful,” said Attorney General Rokita. “If courts force states to provide these expensive, controversial procedures in one prison, it will open the floodgates everywhere—putting Hoosier taxpayers and families across the country on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars per surgery in virtually every state. We cannot let that happen. We have to win this case to protect hardworking taxpayers from footing the bill for these insane surgeries.”
The coalition’s brief maintains that while the Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, it does not guarantee access to any particular treatment—especially those considered unproven or highly debated with significant risks and uncertain benefits.
The document also notes that such procedures are unavailable even to free citizens in nearly half of U.S. states, arguing they should not be deemed basic necessities within prisons either. The amici argue prior Ninth Circuit rulings do not require these treatments and warn that mandating out-of-state transfers for unavailable care raises federalism concerns as well as conflicts with existing law governing prison litigation.
In conclusion, Rokita and his fellow attorneys general urge the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the lower court’s injunction so states can retain discretion over how they manage prisoner healthcare.
