Idaho Judge Blocks Enforcement of State’s Trans Restroom Ban

A group of transgender Idaho residents convinced a federal judge Tuesday to block enforcement of a new state law that criminalizes the use of restrooms that don’t align with an individual’s biological sex.

The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that HB 752 is unconstitutionally vague, and as a result are entitled to a preliminary injunction barring its enforcement, Judge Amanda K. Brailsford of the US District Court for the District of Idaho said.

Brailsford also provisionally certified a class of all transgender people who seek to use a restroom covered by the law that’s consistent with their gender identity. The class meets requirements for certification, since all members could be injured by the same law in the same way, the judge said.

Additionally, Brailsford allowed two of the plaintiffs to stay anonymous during the preliminary injunction phase of the case.

The use of public restrooms by transgender individuals has become a flashpoint in the national debate around broader transgender rights. Several states and school districts have faced constitutional challenges in recent years over restrictions on what restrooms transgender students can use.

The plaintiffs here said in their complaint that Idaho’s law, which was set to take effect July 1, “is one of the most punitive and broadest-sweeping laws in the country to restrict restroom use by transgender people.”

Idaho’s statue makes it unlawful to knowingly enter a restroom or changing room in a government-owned building or place of public accommodation that’s designated for the individual’s opposite sex assigned at birth. The first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, and the second offense is a felony carrying a maximum sentence of five years.

The law allows individuals to use a single-use facility if it’s the only one available, or a restroom designated for the opposite sex if they’re in “dire need” and it’s the only reasonably available facility at the time of their use.

But the law doesn’t provide any objective criteria governing its application, Brailsford said, leaving law enforcement to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular restroom was reasonably available.

The statute doesn’t say whether availability depends on physical proximity or the location of other restrooms. The “dire need” exception also doesn’t contain any guidance about “what level of urgency qualifies as ‘dire’” or explain how an officer should assess whether the exception applies. Different officers could come to different conclusions in identical scenarios due to the lack of standards. The law “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” Brailsford said.

The court also rejected the state’s argument that its interest in promoting bodily privacy and protecting women and children in public restrooms outweighs any alleged harms by the plaintiffs. Acknowledging the inherent interests implicated by restroom use, Brailsford pointed to Idaho’s laws on assault, indecent exposure, trespassing, and others that could protect those interests without infringing the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation, Alturas Law Group PLLC, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., and others represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Jackson-Edney v. Labrador, D. Idaho, No. 1:26-cv-00261, 6/16/26.