In a heated ruling, a federal court in Florida has issued a setback to transgender inmates seeking to be affirmed in their gender.
The long-running legal battle concerns an inmate, 26-year-old Reiyn Keohane, who sought permission to dress and groom herself in accordance with her gender. Keohane, who was incarcerated in a men’s state prison in Raiford six years ago, had begun receiving transition-related care prior to her conviction, but prison officials attempted to deny her access to the same clothing and grooming items available to other female inmates.
Keohane sued, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida initially ordered the Department of Corrections to provide access to hormone treatments in 2016. Even after that ruling, prison officials continued to deny access to clothing and grooming supplies to Keohane, who also has also been prohibited from allowing her hair to grow long.
Last year, the Florida Department of Corrections appealed the district court’s ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and after a seven-month delay, a three-judge panel issued a split decision upholding the prison’s actions.
Keohane then sought an en banc review, in which all 11 appeals judges would hear the case, rather than a select panel.
The court finally came to its conclusions this week, refusing Keohane’s request for a full opinion of the court in a 7-4 decision that strongly divided justices. While Judge Kevin Newsom wrote in the majority decision that, despite the sensitivity of the case, “no source of law obligates us to hear any appeal en banc,” his colleague, Judge Robin Rosenbaum, argued that “too much is at stake” to dismiss the case out of hand.
“We as a court must reckon with these potentially devastating consequences of our actions if we continue to allow opinions that flout the prior-precedent rule while claiming they comply with it to issue unchecked,” wrote Rosenbaum, who was joined by Judges Beverly Martin, Jill Pryor, and Charles Wilson.
The dissent was blistering enough that Newsom felt compelled to write a “pre-rebuttal” in the 46-page opinion released Thursday.
“For all its rhetorical flourish, today’s dissent from denial simply doesn’t make a compelling argument that this case warranted en banc reconsideration,” he wrote. “[…] While the dissental’s spicy rhetoric doesn’t enhance its argument but rather pretty severely diminishes it, to my mind it does, I fear, corrode the collegiality that has historically characterized this great Court.”
“Here’s hoping for better and more charitable days ahead,” Newsom concluded.
In a footnote, Rosenbaum apologized for the perceived offense but held fast to her views. “I am truly sorry that Chief Judge Pryor and Judge Newsom seem to have taken my concerns personally,” she wrote. “I do not believe this dissent to be personal. I have great respect for all my colleagues, and I value this Court’s collegiality. But I also have great respect for the rule of law and the need for our Court to maintain its legitimacy.”
The case could now proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court, although such legal challenges are extremely costly and time-consuming. It’s also unclear whether a court which tilts 6-3 in favor of conservatives following the appointment of anti-LGBTQ+ Amy Coney Barrett to the bench will be inclined to decide differently. In a case before the bench in November regarding the ability of faith-based adoption and foster-care agencies to turn away same-sex prospective parents, judges appeared poised to rule in favor of religious refusals.
Keohane is serving a 15-year sentence for attempted murder and is scheduled for release around 2030.
Get the best of what’s queer. Sign up for them.’s weekly newsletter here.
