Bathroom Law Blocked
Idaho Judge Issues Injunction Against Transgender Bathroom Law HB 752
Anonymous
Key Points
1
Judge Amanda K. Brailsford also granted “provisional class certification,” in addition to the preliminary injunction, meaning the case can proceed on behalf of a broader group while the lawsuit continues.
2
Although several plaintiffs used pseudonyms, the lawsuit also identifies Emilie Jackson-Edney, a 77-year-old transgender Idaho resident, as a named plaintiff—raising the stakes about how Idaho might discover identities even while the court restricts disclosure.
3
HB 752 includes graduated criminal penalties: it makes a first violation a misdemeanor and a second violation a felony—described as up to one year in jail for a first offense and up to five years in prison for a second offense.
4
The judge’s decision emphasized concerns raised by exemptions: Brailsford highlighted that terms like “dire need” and “reasonably available” are likely to enable “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” a point she tied specifically to enforcement standards and exemptions.
5
ACLU and Lambda Legal lawyers framed the practical impact of the injunction as preventing transgender people from facing competing harms—Lambda Legal’s Kell Olson said the ruling allows restroom use “without the fear of arrest,” and ACLU lawyer Barbara Schwabauer said it prevents being forced into either arrest or “harassment and violence.”
A federal judge blocked enforcement of Idaho's new criminal bathroom law on June 16, just two weeks before it was set to take effect. U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford issued a statewide preliminary injunction against House Bill 752, which would have made it a felony for transgender people to repeatedly use restrooms that don't match their birth sex — carrying up to five years in prison for a second offense, according to DN News.
Judge Brailsford ruled the law is likely unconstitutional because its key exceptions are too vague. She found that terms like "dire need" and "reasonably available" give police no clear guidance, making arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement nearly certain. The injunction also covers all of Idaho's roughly 14,900 transgender residents after the judge granted provisional class certification, according to The Pink News.
What the Law Would Have Done to Transgender Idahoans
HB 752 made it a crime for any person to use a restroom that doesn't match their "biological sex" — defined strictly by reproductive anatomy at birth. A first violation would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. A second violation within five years would become a felony, carrying up to five years in prison, Daily Kos reported.
The law applied not just to government buildings but also to private businesses. Idaho's own law enforcement groups opposed the bill. The Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association argued there was no "clear or reasonable way" for officers to determine a person's birth sex without invasive questioning, according to WPTV.
"Dire Need" and "Reasonably Available" Were the Law's Fatal Flaws
The law included exceptions — a person could use an opposite-sex restroom if they were in "dire need" or if no other facility was "reasonably available." But Judge Brailsford found those terms dangerously undefined. Officers would have to make case-by-case, subjective calls with no objective standard to guide them, according to LM Tribune.
That vagueness, the judge ruled, creates the conditions for arbitrary and discriminatory policing. The injunction specifically blocks enforcement when no single-user restroom is available or unoccupied on the same floor. It allows transgender plaintiffs to use multi-stall restrooms when no suitable single-stall option exists, according to DN News.
Six Plaintiffs, Including a 77-Year-Old Woman, Led the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, Jackson-Edney v. Labrador, was filed April 29 by six transgender Idaho residents represented by the ACLU and Lambda Legal. The lead named plaintiff is Emilie Jackson-Edney, a 77-year-old transgender woman who has used women's restrooms for 20 years. She said the law would force her to "decrease her time in public" and "drink less water," according to The Pink News.
Five other plaintiffs used pseudonyms to protect their identities. The judge allowed them to continue doing so and restricted the state from disclosing their names without written permission. Lambda Legal's Kell Olson said the ruling lets transgender people use restrooms "without the fear of arrest." ACLU lawyer Barbara Schwabauer said it stops people from being forced to choose between arrest or "harassment and violence," according to WPTV.
Idaho Plans to Appeal; Locker Rooms and Showers Still at Risk
The injunction does not cover everything in HB 752. Provisions targeting changing rooms, locker rooms, and showers remain in place while the broader case plays out. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, the named defendant, has signaled the state will appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Daily Kos.
Plaintiffs are seeking broader relief that would strike down the remaining restroom restrictions entirely. The law technically takes effect July 1, but police are legally barred from making arrests in the circumstances defined by Judge Brailsford's order. Legal teams are working to educate the class of roughly 14,900 transgender residents on how to document single-stall restroom availability to stay protected, according to LM Tribune.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
26
Articles
260
Reach
286
A
AnonymousAuthor
