Idaho makes toilet use by transgender people a criminal offense — judge immediately blocks law

This summer, the US state of Idaho went further than any other state in its campaign against sex-neutral toilets: Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 752, which makes it a criminal offense for transgender people to use, in government buildings and businesses open to the public, a restroom that matches their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth. The law took effect on July 1, 2026, and goes further than comparable rules in other states because violations are punishable not by a fine but by imprisonment. Before the summer was even over, enforcement had already been put on hold following intervention by a federal judge.

From violation to felony

HB 752 applies not only to city halls and schools, but also to libraries, airports, restaurants, and hospitals—in short, virtually anywhere the public goes. A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison; a second violation is a felony carrying a sentence of up to five years. Idaho therefore treats using the wrong restroom not as a matter of public order, but as a criminal offense on a par with other serious crimes. For supporters of sex-based separation in washrooms and changing rooms, this is a matter of principle; critics—including people who support the underlying idea of separate spaces—point out that a law this far-reaching is inevitably difficult to enforce without checking people’s appearance.

Six plaintiffs and a telling show of support

On April 30, 2026, six transgender Idaho residents, including trans man Diego Fable and trans woman Amelia Milette, filed a federal lawsuit against the law with the support of the ACLU, the ACLU of Idaho, Lambda Legal, and the law firms Munger, Tolles & Olson and Alturas Law Group. They argue that HB 752 violates the rights to due process, equal treatment, and privacy, and that the law’s vague wording effectively forces police officers to detain people based on their appearance. “If you cannot use the restroom at work, you cannot work. If you cannot use the restroom at school, you cannot go to school,” the lawsuit states, summarizing the core of the objection. Notably, Idaho’s own police unions—the Fraternal Order of Police and the Chiefs of Police Association—had also opposed the law before it was passed: they saw no “clear or reasonable way” to enforce it without subjecting people to intrusive questioning about their sex.

Judge puts law on hold as Idaho appeals

On June 16, 2026, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of HB 752 pending a final decision. The judge also provisionally granted the case class-action status, meaning that the ruling does not affect only the six plaintiffs but, in practice, protects all transgender residents of Idaho while the case proceeds. “This ruling means that transgender Idahoans can continue to participate in public life without the threat of arrest for using the restroom,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, legal director of the ACLU of Idaho. The state of Idaho is not accepting the ruling and has appealed; while that appeal is pending, the injunction remains in effect and no one can be prosecuted under HB 752.

A lesson for the broader debate

The case in Idaho shows that the debate over sex-based separation in public facilities in the United States is increasingly focused on how such a distinction can be enforced without violating fundamental rights. While countries such as Great Britain are using a code of conduct for single-sex spaces to develop practical, proportionate rules, Idaho chose the most severe criminal-law instrument available—and, according to both judges and its own police, got ahead of itself in the process. For policymakers elsewhere considering similar rules, the outcome in Idaho indicates that enforceability and proportionality carry just as much weight as the underlying principle.