Indiana Judge’s Groundbreaking Decision on Transgender Inmate’s Medical Request

Prison Surgery

An Indiana judge has made a groundbreaking ruling, declaring the denial of sex reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate unconstitutional.

At a Glance

  • A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional for an Indiana prison to deny a transgender inmate sex reassignment surgery.
  • The ACLU sued the Indiana Department of Corrections on behalf of Jonathan C. Richardson, also known as Autumn Cordellioné.
  • Indiana law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for inmate sex reassignment surgeries, but the ACLU argues this prohibition violates the Eighth Amendment.
  • Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita plans to appeal the decision.
  • Cordellioné was convicted of strangling his 11-month-old stepdaughter to death in 2001 and is serving a 55-year sentence.

Judge’s Ruling

A federal judge in Indiana has ruled that denying sex reassignment surgery to transgender inmate Autumn Cordellionè is unconstitutional. The judge determined that the surgery is essential for treating Cordellionè’s gender dysphoria, directly contradicting state law prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for such procedures. This landmark decision mandates the Indiana Department of Corrections to provide the surgery despite anticipated appeals.

Cordellionè, who was convicted under the name Jonathan C. Richardson for reckless homicide, is serving a 55-year sentence for killing his 11-month-old stepdaughter. The ruling came after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on Cordellionè’s behalf, arguing that denying the surgery violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Medical Necessity

The lawsuit asserts that without the surgery, Cordellionè’s condition would lead to severe mental and physical harm. Judge Richard Young stated that Cordellionè’s gender dysphoria is a “serious medical need” that necessitates the surgery to prevent severe psychological and bodily harm. The Indiana Department of Correction must take “all reasonable actions” to ensure the procedure is carried out.

“Specifically, Ms. Cordellioné has shown that her gender dysphoria is a serious medical need, and that, despite other treatments Defendant has provided her to treat her gender dysphoria, she requires gender-affirming surgery to prevent a risk of serious bodily and psychological harm.”

The ACLU, representing Cordellionè, argued that gender-affirming surgery is a medical necessity. “Today marks a significant victory for transgender individuals in Indiana’s prisons,” said Ken Falk, the ACLU’s legal director. “Denying evidence-based medical care to incarcerated people simply because they are transgender is unconstitutional. We are pleased that the Court agreed.” The ruling is a direct challenge to state laws prohibiting such expenditures.

State’s Response

The state’s defense heavily relied on testimony from a psychiatrist who never met Cordellionè and is considered an outlier in the field of gender dysphoria, making the testimony less compelling. Attorney General Todd Rokita has announced plans to appeal the decision, stating that using taxpayer money for such surgeries is not only unconstitutional but also morally and ethically wrong according to state laws.

“She has engaged in self-harm and has attempted suicide because she could not stand the fact that her sex at birth fails to match the fact that she is a woman and cannot tolerate her male body,” the suit states. Cordellionè’s history of suicide attempts and self-harm further underscored the necessity of the surgery, according to the ACLU.

Conclusion

The judge ruled that the Indiana Department of Correction must ensure the surgery takes place, stating it is medically necessary for Cordellionè. The court found gender-affirming surgery to be an essential part of medical care for some individuals with gender dysphoria, putting Indiana laws in direct conflict with constitutional rights.

“When gender dysphoria remains marked and sustained, it is medically necessary to provide the surgery … Without such surgery, a gender‐dysphoric person may suffer increasingly debilitating symptoms of anxiety, depression, hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and other manifestations of psychological decompensation and may resort to suicide,” Young wrote.

The ruling specifically applies only to Cordellionè, addressing her unique medical needs while not broadly striking down the state law. The case raises significant questions about the intersection of medical necessity, constitutional rights, and state policies on gender-affirming care.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR