BOISE — As a federal judge weighs whether to temporarily halt Idaho’s new law safeguarding restroom and changing room privacy in private businesses, attorneys on both sides discussed practical enforcement during a court hearing Friday.
House Bill 752, passed by the Republican-led Legislature and set to take effect July 1, establishes criminal penalties for individuals who knowingly and willfully enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite biological sex. First offenses are misdemeanors, with repeat violations carrying felony charges punishable by up to five years in prison. The measure includes limited exceptions, such as for those in dire need.
Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian, representing the state, emphasized that the law upholds a longstanding, commonsense principle: protecting people’s privacy when they are partially undressed, especially shielding women and children from exposure to the opposite sex in vulnerable settings. Restrooms often have gaps in stalls, and the Legislature acted in response to real incidents where Idahoans felt their privacy was compromised.
“The point is not that transgender people are more likely to commit safety violations. The point is that men in women’s restrooms are more likely to commit safety violations,” Zarian said, adding that sometimes men pretend to be transgender to access women’s spaces. The law prioritizes privacy and safety for the vast majority of Idahoans using sex-segregated facilities.
Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford pressed attorneys on how the law would operate in practice, particularly regarding proof of biological sex. Attorneys noted that checking identification cards can be complicated, as some transgender individuals have updated their documents to match their gender identity rather than biological sex.
Zarian suggested DNA testing as one potential tool for law enforcement when necessary, though he clarified it would not typically involve on-the-spot demands and would follow proper procedures. Opposing counsel highlighted concerns about warrants and vagueness.
The hearing underscored the challenges of enforcing basic boundaries in a society where biological reality is sometimes contested. Yet the core goal remains straightforward: restoring clear, sex-based privacy protections that most people once took for granted.
Six opposite-gender-identifying Idahoans, represented by Lambda Legal and the ACLU, filed the lawsuit seeking to block restrictions on using the opposite sex’s restrooms. They argue the law could create safety risks for them.
This legislation represents one of several recent efforts in Idaho to affirm biological sex distinctions in areas like sports, schools, and now private facilities. These measures are rooted in protecting fairness, privacy, and the safety of women, girls, and all children. Similar laws exist in a handful of other states, with Idaho’s extending to private businesses and carrying strong penalties to deter violations.
Supporters of the law argue it addresses legitimate concerns about privacy invasions and potential exploitation, without assuming ill intent from every individual. In an era of rapidly deteriorating social norms, the policy offers a practical, evidence-based return to separated spaces that have long served to protect the vulnerable and society as a whole.
Judge Brailsford indicated she would issue a prompt ruling on a preliminary injunction that could pause the law during ongoing litigation.
Idaho’s approach reflects a commitment to common sense: biological sex is observable, relevant in private spaces, and central to protecting privacy and safety for women and children. In a world that sometimes feels detached from basic realities, policies like this prioritize the dignity and security of all Idahoans in their most personal moments.