A federal district judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former Boise High School student against the Boise School District over two encounters with a transgender classmate in a girls’ restroom, clearing the way for a jury trial set for next summer.

The Ruling

District Judge Lynn Norton issued her ruling Friday, denying the school district’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the student, identified in court documents by the pseudonym Jane Doe. The case centers on encounters that occurred in January and February of last year and raises unresolved questions about how Idaho’s school bathroom law interacts with federal court orders pausing its enforcement.

Doe is represented by attorneys from the Idaho Family Policy Center and is seeking $10,000 in civil fines along with additional monetary damages, alleging psychological and emotional harm from the bathroom encounters.

The Legal Dispute

At the heart of the school district’s dismissal argument was the timing of the incidents. The encounters happened while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a stay on Senate Bill 1100 — the Idaho law requiring public school students to use restrooms that correspond with their biological sex at birth. The district argued that because the law was paused at the time, no enforceable obligation existed and no private lawsuit could proceed.

SB 1100 includes a private cause of action provision, giving students the ability to bring civil suits directly against public schools over bathroom access violations.

Judge Norton drew a distinction between the stay blocking government enforcement of the law and the law’s private right of action. “So, while (Doe) was precluded from filing a claim while the stay was in effect, Doe is not precluded from filing the claim after the preliminary injunction was denied,” Norton wrote in her ruling.

The Ninth Circuit had issued the stay pausing SB 1100 but later declined to issue a preliminary injunction — a distinction Judge Norton found significant in allowing the suit to move forward.

School District’s Position

Attorneys for the Boise School District pushed back on the ruling’s implications for schools trying to comply with contradictory legal signals. District attorney Mitchell Kolberg of Anderson, Julian and Hull argued that schools are in an impossible position when federal courts pause a state law but private suits can still accrue. “You’re really placing a school district between a rock and a hard place,” Kolberg said.

The district’s argument highlighted a broader tension that has emerged as Idaho’s bathroom law has moved through the courts: schools must simultaneously respond to state law mandates and federal court orders that may temporarily suspend them, all while remaining exposed to civil liability under the law’s private cause of action provision.

Background on SB 1100

Idaho lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1100 to require that students in public schools use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their sex at birth. The law was challenged in federal court, leading to ongoing litigation in the Ninth Circuit. While the court issued a stay on enforcement, it stopped short of granting a preliminary injunction — a procedural distinction that now carries significant legal weight in this case. A similar dynamic played out in federal court earlier this year when a judge allowed a separate challenge to proceed despite the government’s jurisdictional objections.

What’s Next

With Judge Norton’s dismissal denial now on the record, the case moves toward trial. Pretrial conferences are scheduled for April, and a jury trial has been set for June 7, 2027. The outcome could have broad implications for how Idaho school districts manage bathroom access policies during periods when state law is under a federal stay.

The case adds another layer of legal complexity to Idaho’s ongoing battles over school policy and parental rights legislation. Attorney General Raúl Labrador has been active in defending Idaho statutes facing court challenges, and the Boise bathroom case may eventually draw additional state involvement depending on how the trial court proceedings develop.