A federal judge has halted enforcement of a key portion of Idaho’s transgender bathroom law, ruling that parts of the statute are too vague to be constitutionally applied to criminal penalties. U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford issued the ruling Tuesday, just weeks before the law was set to take effect on July 1.

The Lawsuit and the Law

Six transgender Idaho residents filed suit challenging the measure, which Gov. Brad Little signed in March. The law restricts which restrooms transgender people may use in private buildings open to the public — a broader reach than bathroom laws in many other states, which typically apply only to schools or government facilities. Idaho joins 19 states that have enacted some form of transgender bathroom restriction.

Under the law, a first offense carried a penalty of up to one year in jail, while a second offense could result in up to five years in prison. The statute did include a narrow exception allowing use of an opposite-sex single-use restroom when it is the only “reasonably available” option and an individual is in “dire need.”

Judge Brailsford’s ruling found that the law’s language was insufficiently clear to support criminal enforcement, blocking key provisions before they could be applied. A prior federal court action had already paused portions of the law ahead of the July 1 deadline, signaling early judicial skepticism about its enforceability.

State Response

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador announced plans to appeal the decision. Labrador has been a consistent defender of the law in court proceedings, and the state is expected to seek review at the Ninth Circuit.

The ruling does not permanently strike down the law — it halts enforcement while legal challenges proceed. How appellate courts ultimately assess the vagueness question will determine whether the criminal provisions can be salvaged or must be rewritten by the Legislature.

What Comes Next

With Labrador’s appeal forthcoming, the case will likely move to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The outcome could have implications beyond Idaho, given that nearly 20 states have enacted similar measures in recent years. A circuit court ruling on the vagueness question could affect how legislatures in other states draft future bathroom restriction statutes.

In the meantime, the criminal enforcement provisions remain on hold. The Idaho Legislature, which adjourned earlier this spring, would need to reconvene or wait until next session to address any statutory language a court finds constitutionally deficient.

The case adds to a growing body of federal litigation over state transgender policies and is one of several legal battles that will shape the practical reach of laws enacted during Idaho’s 2026 legislative session.