A federal judge has blocked part of Idaho’s transgender bathroom law from taking effect, ruling that key provisions of House Bill 752 are unconstitutionally vague — a significant legal setback for a measure that Idaho lawmakers passed in March and Governor Brad Little signed into law this spring.

What the Court Ruled

Judge Amanda Brailsford granted an injunction preventing the law from being enforced against the use of single-occupancy public restrooms when the measure’s July 1 effective date arrives. The injunction applies specifically to single-user facilities; the law may still be enforced in multi-stall restrooms where no single-stall alternative is available.

Brailsford found that the law’s language creates serious constitutional problems. Terms such as “dire need” and “reasonably available” appear nowhere with statutory definitions, and the judge determined that the bill’s handling of “biological sex” was similarly imprecise. Under long-standing legal doctrine, criminal laws must give citizens fair notice of what conduct is prohibited — a standard Brailsford concluded H.B. 752 fails to meet in its current form.

The case, Jackson-Edney v. Labrador, was brought on behalf of six transgender Idaho residents by the ACLU, its Idaho chapter, and Lambda Legal. The plaintiffs targeted the restroom provisions specifically and did not challenge the law’s separate restrictions on changing rooms.

What the Law Does

Idaho lawmakers approved H.B. 752 on March 27, 2026, framing the legislation around privacy and safety in sex-designated facilities. The measure makes it a misdemeanor to use a restroom designated for the opposite biological sex, with a second offense elevated to a felony carrying up to five years in prison.

Supporters of the legislation argued during the session that the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining sex-separated spaces in public buildings. Solicitor General Michael Zarian argued the state’s position before the court on June 5, emphasizing what the administration characterized as “privacy and safety concerns” underlying the law.

Opponents noted that Idaho already has statutes on the books — including laws covering sexual battery, malicious harassment, and indecent exposure — that address misconduct in restroom and other public spaces, and that H.B. 752 adds a new layer of criminal exposure on top of those existing tools.

Reactions

Attorney General Raúl Labrador pushed back sharply on the court’s reasoning, disputing the finding that the law’s core terms are ambiguous. “Biological sex is not vague, and neither is the law,” Labrador said, signaling he intends to challenge the ruling on appeal.

ACLU of Idaho Legal Director Paul Carlos Southwick welcomed the decision, saying the injunction means transgender Idahoans “can continue participating in public life without the threat of being arrested for using the bathroom.”

What Comes Next

Labrador’s office has indicated it will appeal, which means the legal battle over H.B. 752 is likely to continue through the federal courts in the months ahead. The July 1 date remains significant for portions of the law not covered by the injunction — enforcement in multi-stall restrooms without a single-stall alternative may proceed as scheduled.

The case adds to a growing docket of constitutional challenges to Idaho legislation working their way through the federal judiciary. A Boise federal trial earlier this year tested Idaho’s abortion ban on constitutional grounds, reflecting a broader pattern of high-profile disputes between state policy and federal court review. The Idaho Supreme Court has also been expanding its public presence, taking hearings on the road to communities like Rexburg and Twin Falls as legal questions across the state multiply.

For the Idaho Legislature, the ruling raises the prospect that additional drafting work may be needed if lawmakers wish to sustain the law’s enforcement across all facility types. Courts have consistently required that criminal statutes define their terms with enough precision to give the public clear guidance — a standard that, according to Judge Brailsford, the current version of H.B. 752 does not satisfy for single-user restrooms.