A federal judge has put the brakes on Idaho’s sweeping new transgender bathroom law, preventing the state from fully enforcing a measure that would have made it a criminal offense for transgender people to use restrooms that don’t match the sex listed on their birth certificate.
The Idaho law — considered the most restrictive of its kind among roughly 20 states that have placed limits on bathroom access for transgender people — was scheduled to take effect July 1. U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford, based in Boise, issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday halting significant portions of the law while a class-action lawsuit challenging its constitutionality works its way through the courts.
Under Brailsford’s order, transgender individuals may continue using single-occupancy restrooms that align with their gender identity. If no single-stall option is available on the same floor of a building, they may also use a multi-stall restroom matching their gender identity.
However, the state retains the authority to enforce the law as it pertains to multi-user restrooms, as well as sections dealing with public locker rooms and shower facilities — areas that were not part of the legal challenge.
The plaintiffs in the case sought a narrowly focused injunction targeting what they considered the most burdensome elements of the law, though their ultimate goal is a final ruling that would eliminate all restroom restrictions entirely.
At the heart of the lawsuit is the argument that the statute violates plaintiffs’ rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically their rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy.
In a 30-page written opinion, Judge Brailsford sided with the plaintiffs on the due process question, concluding they are likely to succeed in their argument that the law’s enforcement provisions are too vague to be constitutional. She determined that finding alone was enough to override the state’s public safety rationale and justify issuing the injunction — without even needing to weigh in on the privacy and equal protection claims.
Supporters of the law have argued it is designed to protect women and children from potential predators who might pose as transgender individuals to gain access to women’s restrooms. The judge acknowledged that the state does have a legitimate interest in “promoting bodily privacy and protecting women and children in public restrooms from those who may seek to do harm,” but concluded that existing criminal statutes can address those concerns “without infringing upon plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
The plaintiffs countered that rather than improving safety, the law would put transgender people at greater risk, exposing them to “likely violence, harassment and psychological harm.”
The lawsuit also contends that the Republican-controlled Idaho legislature “relied on inaccurate beliefs and stereotypes about transgender people” when writing the law, “conflating transgender people with sexual predators.”
Idaho is one of approximately 20 states with some form of transgender bathroom restriction in place, according to data from the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ-focused think tank. Only three other states — Utah, Kansas, and Florida — also use the threat of jail time to enforce similar rules, but Idaho’s law is broader in reach and carries harsher criminal penalties than those states.
The law applies to government buildings, restaurants, stores, and other businesses open to the public, making it illegal to enter a restroom, changing room, or shower designated for the opposite biological sex. A first violation would be a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in jail, while a second offense within five years would be classified as a felony with a maximum five-year prison sentence.
Idaho has also previously enacted two other laws restricting bathroom access in public schools and on college campuses, enforced through the ability of students to file civil lawsuits. Both of those laws remain in effect and are currently being challenged in court.
