The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated a ruling in favor of a male inmate who identifies as a woman and wanted to be housed with female inmates in a Colorado jail.

In an orders list released Monday morning, the court vacated a decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sheriff Roybal et al. v. Darlene Griffith. The high court sent the case back to the 10th Circuit “for further consideration in light of” its decisions in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and United States v. Skrmetti.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that states can prohibit males who identify as females from competing in girls’ and women’s sports. In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled last year that Tennessee could enforce a law banning body-mutilating surgeries and hormone drugs for trans-identified minors.

Griffith, a man who has identified as female for about 20 years, was put in the male population at El Paso County Jail in 2020 as a pretrial detainee, despite requesting to be housed with the female population. He is now living in the Colorado Springs area.

Griffith filed a complaint claiming that authorities violated the Fourteenth Amendment by housing him in an all-male unit and denying him various products available to female inmates. He also claimed they violated the Fourth Amendment with an allegedly abusive cross-gender strip search, and the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to accommodate his diagnosed gender dysphoria.

In February 2025, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit ruled 2-1 to revive Griffith’s lawsuit, reversing a lower court ruling against the inmate. Judge Veronica Rossman, a Biden appointee, wrote the majority opinion, which sent the case back to the district court to consider some of Griffith’s claims.

“Griffith has plausibly alleged the Housing and Commissary Policies impermissibly perpetuate sex-based stereotypes and harms. The Policies might ultimately survive heightened scrutiny, but that issue is not before us,” wrote Rossman. “This appeal presents only the antecedent questions relevant at the motion to dismiss stage: does a sex classification exist, and has Ms. Griffith plausibly stated an Equal Protection claim? We answer yes to both.”

Rossman wrote that “we cannot say the particular sex-based classifications at issue in this case serve important government objectives through means substantially related to those objectives.”

Judge Timothy Tymkovich, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that “sex is a biological fact” and that sex-based segregation in jails is constitutional. “The way in which Ms. Griffith claims to be similarly situated (her gender identity) is not the relevant distinction the Jail permissibly draws (her biological sex),” wrote Tymkovich. “Ms. Griffith was treated identically to those with whom she is similarly situated, biological males. That identical treatment forecloses her Equal Protection claim.”

Michael Gryboski serves as editor of The Christian Post.

This article was originally published in The Christian Post.