Federal Judge Blocks Idaho Bathroom Law Carrying 5-Year Prison Term Over Vagueness
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Jun 16
Federal Judge Blocks Idaho Bathroom Law Carrying 5-Year Prison Term Over Vagueness
2 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Jun 16
Summary
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday stopping Idaho from enforcing a new bathroom law before its July 1 start date, giving transgender residents a temporary reprieve.
Judge Amanda K. Brailsford said the statute likely violates the Constitution because it is unconstitutionally vague, leaving officers to make subjective judgments about a person's biological sex.
The challenged measure threatened up to five years in prison for using certain restrooms that do not match sex assigned at birth, with harsher penalties for repeat violations.
The order lets transgender people use single-stall restrooms matching their gender identity, or multi-user restrooms when no single-user option is available on the same floor.
Six transgender Idaho residents brought the case; their challenge to the bathroom provisions continues, while the law's locker-room and shower restrictions were not contested.
With Idaho's restroom law blocked, what is the next legal battleground for transgender rights in the U.S.?
If police find restroom laws impractical, what other solutions can address public safety and gender identity?
Idaho’s H.B. 752 Halted: Legal Battle Over the Country’s Most Punitive Anti-Trans Bathroom Law
Overview
On June 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked Idaho’s H.B. 752 from taking effect as planned on July 1, 2026. This decision provided significant, though temporary, protections for transgender individuals in Idaho. The injunction came after a federal lawsuit was filed challenging the law, with attorneys for both sides presenting their arguments in court. During the hearing, concerns were raised about the law’s vagueness and enforceability, including Judge Brailsford’s observation that law enforcement cannot collect DNA without consent or a warrant, highlighting practical and constitutional issues with the law’s enforcement.