Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Idaho Department of Correction, et al. v. Adree Edmo, aka Mason Edmo
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 19-35017, 19-35019 · judgment August 23, 2019
Before the decision, about 2.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a state or local-government petitioner, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Questions presented
The Ninth Circuit became the first circuit in the nation to conclude that the Eighth Amendment mandates the provision of sex reassignment surgery when it held that prison psychiatrist Dr. Scott Eliason inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on transgender inmate Adree Edmo by recommending in good faith that Edmo’s gender dysphoria be treated conservatively with hormone therapy and counseling, and not sex reassignment surgery. The panel reached this result by adopting an advocacy group’s treatment guidelines as constitutional requirements. The panel then held that Dr. Eliason was deliberately indifferent because he deviated from those guidelines; it failed to properly consider the subjective reasoning underlying his decision. The district court has ordered Idaho to provide Edmo’s surgery, which, if it occurs, will be the second such surgery ever performed on an inmate in this country. Ten circuit judges disagreed with the panel’s decision and would have granted the petition for rehearing en banc. The questions presented are as follows:
-
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the guidelines set by an advocacy organization constitute the constitutional minima for inmate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, when the First, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have all concluded that they do not.
-
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s holding that a prison health care provider’s individualized medical decision was unreasonable and therefore constituted deliberate indifference, regardless of his subjective
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Brady James Hall
Moore Elia Kraft & Hall, LLP
For respondent
Lori Ellen Rifkin
Rifkin Law Office
Proceedings
- Oct 13 2020Petition DENIED. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I would hold that the case is moot and direct that the decision below be vacated. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
- Oct 05 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
- Sep 11 2020Reply in support of suggestion of mootness filed by petitioners Idaho Department of Correction, et al. (Distributed)
- Sep 03 2020Response to suggestion of mootness from respondent Adree Edmo filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 26 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
- Aug 24 2020Reply of petitioners Idaho Department of Correction, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 24 2020Suggestion of mootness filed by petitioners Idaho Department of Correction, et al. (Distributed)
- Aug 10 2020Brief of respondent Adree Edmo in opposition filed.
- Jun 02 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 10, 2020.
- May 29 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 11, 2020 to August 10, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 21 2020Reply of applicants Idaho Department of Correction, et al. filed.
- May 21 2020Application (19A1038) referred to the Court.
- May 21 2020Application (19A1038) denied by the Court. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the application.
- May 18 2020Response to application from respondent Adree Edmo filed.
- May 13 2020Response to application (19A1038) requested by Justice Kagan, due Monday, May 18, by 4 p.m. ET
- May 06 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 11, 2020)
- May 06 2020Application (19A1038) for a stay pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kagan.