Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of Idaho's Transgender Bathroom Law

A federal judge has ruled that transgender people in Idaho will not face criminal charges for using public restrooms that match their gender identities, temporarily blocking key enforcement provisions of a state law set to take effect July 1. U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford issued the ruling on Tuesday in response to a lawsuit filed by six transgender Idaho residents represented by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the law was unconstitutionally vague.

The Idaho law, signed by Republican Governor Brad Little in March, is notably stricter than bathroom restriction laws in at least 19 other states. It applies not only to public buildings but also to privately owned facilities with public restrooms, and imposes significant criminal penalties: up to one year in jail for a first offense and up to five years in prison for a second offense. The law included narrow exceptions allowing use of single-stall restrooms designated for the "opposite sex" only when it is the "only reasonably available" option and the person is in "dire need"—a standard that even the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association found problematic to enforce.

Judge Brailsford largely sided with the plaintiffs, finding the law's language vague and setting specific parameters on its enforcement. Her preliminary injunction prohibits enforcement against someone using a single-stall restroom or when no single-user restroom is available and unoccupied on the same floor as a multi-user facility. The ruling does not entirely eliminate the law but prevents criminal prosecution under the specified circumstances. Lambda Legal lawyer Kell Olson stated the decision allows transgender Idahoans to use public restrooms "without the fear of arrest looming over them" while litigation continues.

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador announced plans to appeal the ruling, contending that the judge's decision is "results-driven" and misapplies the law. He argued that "biological sex is not vague," suggesting the state intends to challenge the court's interpretation. Despite the ruling, Labrador indicated the law can still take effect regarding changing rooms and some other restroom categories, and he noted it applies to people who are not transgender as well.

The case reflects broader national tensions over transgender rights and bathroom access policies. Lambda Legal and ACLU representatives framed the preliminary injunction as a vital step toward permanently defeating what they characterize as a discriminatory law that violates privacy and fundamental equality.