Convicted MS-13 Operative is Suing President Trump

Barbed wire fence against sunset sky background

A convicted MS-13 operative is suing President Trump and the Bureau of Prisons to be legally “recognized” as a woman in federal custody, turning a violent gang case into a test of executive authority and prison policy.

Story Snapshot

A transgender MS-13 inmate filed a civil-rights suit naming President Trump and BOP, seeking recognition as female and an injunction against Executive Order 14168.
Federal court records confirm the June 20, 2025 filing in the Middle District of Florida with a TRO request; the case remains ongoing.
Media identify the plaintiff as Oscar Aguilar Contreras (aka Fendi G. Skyy), serving 21 years at USP Coleman II for crimes tied to 2016 MS-13 murders.
The outcome could shape nationwide BOP policies on searches, medical care, and gender recognition for inmates.

Filed Lawsuit Targets Trump and BOP Over Recognition and Prison Policy

Court records show a federal civil-rights complaint filed June 20, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, seeking a temporary restraining order against enforcement of Executive Order 14168 in prisons and demanding recognition of the plaintiff as a woman. The docket confirms the filing and references claims of exacerbated gender dysphoria and suicidal ideation allegedly linked to policy implementation at USP Coleman II, a high-security federal facility in Florida. The case remains active with no TRO granted on the public record.

Media reports identify the plaintiff as Oscar Aguilar Contreras, who has used the name Fendi G. Skyy since 2024, and state he is serving a 21-year sentence tied to MS-13 activity and 2016 murders of a 14-year-old and 17-year-old Edvin Méndez. Coverage emphasizes the unusual decision to name the sitting President alongside BOP, framing the suit as a constitutional challenge to a numbered executive order that affects classification, searches, and gender-related care in custody. The court’s Orlando Division holds jurisdiction.

Executive Order 14168 and Constitutional Claims at Issue

A civil-rights litigation tracker summarizes the case as challenging EO 14168’s treatment of sex and gender in federal contexts, alleging that its application in prisons results in denial of gender-aligned items and care, opposite-sex searches, and harassment. The claims invoke the Eighth Amendment (medical care and conditions), Equal Protection (sex discrimination), and First Amendment theories. The litigation strategy mirrors prior transgender incarceration cases, but the direct bid to enjoin a presidential executive order gives this case broader policy implications inside federal facilities.

The plaintiff’s filings, as reflected in summaries, assert that misgendering and related treatment in a men’s prison intensify gender dysphoria, contributing to suicidal ideation. Just The News also relays a claim that MS-13 members targeted the plaintiff for being an informant in 2016–2017, a custody risk allegation presented as part of the context but not independently corroborated in the public court excerpt. Media and tracking sources agree the case is ongoing, and no order has modified BOP practices as of the latest publicly available docket entry.

Why This Case Matters for Corrections Policy and Executive Power

The case could force immediate changes through a TRO or preliminary injunction for pronoun usage, search protocols, clothing allowances, and access to gender-related medical care for the plaintiff, with potential ripple effects if broader relief issues. A merits ruling against EO 14168 in the prison context could constrain federal definitions and implementation nationwide, prompting revisions to BOP policy and training. Corrections systems often look to federal outcomes for guidance, so states may track this closely as they calibrate Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment compliance.

Conservative readers will recognize the stakes: a violent MS-13 conviction intersecting with demands to rewrite recognition and housing rules inside prisons, with the sitting President named to challenge the policy’s foundation. The court will decide if constitutional doctrines require accommodations that effectively override executive directives in custody. Until then, BOP officials continue implementing existing rules, and DOJ litigators will defend the order’s legality while judges weigh deference to prison administration against asserted constitutional injuries.