Idaho’s criminal ban on transgender individuals using restrooms and changing rooms that do not correspond to their biological sex is now in effect, but law enforcement officials across the state say they still lack clear guidance on how to actually enforce it.

House Bill 752, passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year, creates criminal penalties for anyone who “knowingly and willfully” enters a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex. The law covers government-owned buildings as well as private businesses open to the public — a scope that the ACLU says makes Idaho’s law unique among states.

What the Law Does

A first violation under the new law is a misdemeanor carrying a sentence of up to one year in prison. A second offense within five years rises to a felony, with a maximum penalty of five years behind bars. According to the ACLU, no other state with a criminal bathroom restriction extends it to private businesses, and Idaho’s penalties are the steepest among the three states that have enacted criminal-level bans.

Republican lawmakers pointed to an incident at a Sandpoint YMCA — where a man was found in a women’s locker room — as part of the justification for the legislation.

Officers Without a Roadmap

Despite the law being on the books, Idaho law enforcement leaders acknowledge they have little to work with when it comes to practical enforcement. Bryan Lovell, president of the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police, said officers might begin by asking someone directly about their gender or checking identification — but conceded that tools for making a definitive determination simply do not exist.

“We don’t — we don’t have a test or a scanner or anything else that we can just go up to someone and you know take a picture and go, ‘Oh, this is your gender,'” Lovell said.

Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney Chris Boyd raised even sharper concerns about what enforcement might require in practice. He said that verifying someone’s biological sex could constitute an invasive procedure — one that would require legal authorization before officers could proceed.

“You would have to have some kind of procedure, and it’s an invasive procedure, so it would require potentially a search warrant, to observe someone physically underneath their clothes,” Boyd said.

State’s Position vs. Critics

Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian took a different approach when addressing a federal court, arguing that the law places responsibility on bathroom users — not police — to know which facility they are legally permitted to use. That framing shifts the enforcement burden away from proactive policing and toward complaint-driven response.

The ACLU of Idaho, which has challenged the law in federal court, disputes that the enforcement picture is anything close to settled. Attorney Emily Croston said the state has not provided a coherent explanation of how the statute will actually be applied in practice.

A federal judge has issued a partial block of the law, allowing transgender individuals to use multi-user restrooms consistent with their gender identity in situations where single-user facilities are not available nearby. That injunction covers bathrooms only — changing rooms remain fully subject to the ban.

Community Response

While legal battles continue, transgender advocacy groups in Idaho have taken practical steps in response to the law. Scar Rulien, a board member for Trans Affirm, said the nonprofit has published a list of locations considered safe for transgender individuals navigating restroom access under the new legal environment.

What Comes Next

The partial federal block leaves the law in a complicated interim state, with full enforcement still uncertain pending further court proceedings. The gap between what the Legislature passed and what officers can realistically execute raises questions that neither state officials nor local law enforcement have yet resolved.

The enforcement ambiguity surrounding HB 752 fits into a broader pattern of Idaho’s most contentious legislation facing immediate legal and logistical scrutiny after passage — a dynamic that has played out across several major policy debates during recent sessions. As Idaho officials navigate federal pressure on election administration and other contested policy fronts, the bathroom ban adds another area where implementation is lagging behind the law itself.