Idaho legislators have approved what would become the country's most restrictive bathroom law, making it a criminal offense for transgender individuals to use facilities matching their gender identity, even in private businesses. The measure carries penalties of up to one year in jail for first-time violations and up to five years in prison for repeat offenses.
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho’s legislature approved comprehensive restroom restrictions on Friday, creating criminal penalties for transgender individuals who use facilities that align with their gender identity, including those in private establishments.
Should Republican Governor Brad Little sign this measure into law, Idaho would establish the nation’s most severe bathroom restrictions, making it a criminal act for individuals to enter restrooms, locker rooms, or changing facilities that don’t match their biological sex at birth.
Those found in violation would face misdemeanor charges carrying up to one year of imprisonment for initial offenses, while subsequent violations would constitute felonies punishable by as much as five years in prison.
While 19 states, Idaho among them, have already enacted restrictions preventing transgender people from accessing bathrooms and changing facilities corresponding to their gender in educational institutions and certain public venues, tracking data from the Movement Advancement Project shows only three additional states — Florida, Kansas and Utah — have established criminal consequences for violating such bathroom regulations.
However, Idaho’s proposed law extends more comprehensively to private enterprises than existing legislation elsewhere, encompassing any “place of public accommodation,” which includes businesses or facilities serving the general public. The measure provides nine specific exemptions covering scenarios such as janitorial duties, emergency response, assisting children, or instances involving “dire need” for restroom access.
Republican Senator Ben Toews, the bill’s sponsor, stated his goal wasn’t to be “unkind.” Rather, he explained, the measure aims to safeguard women and children.
“All of what we’re trying to solve here is not targeting any one group or person, it’s dealing with sexual predators and very real issues. This isn’t criminalizing someone for who they are,” he said. “There’s no law currently on our books that prohibits a biological man from entering a shower room with undressed women and children present.”
Law enforcement organizations, including the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, voiced opposition to the legislation, arguing it would burden officers with the challenging and inappropriate responsibility of visually assessing someone’s biological sex or determining their level of “dire need.”
Democratic Senator James Ruchti drew parallels between this bill and previously repealed constitutional provisions in Idaho that prevented Native Americans, Chinese residents, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from voting. Those historical laws imposed civil rather than criminal penalties, Ruchti noted.
The discriminatory constitutional language remained in place until 1950 for Native Americans, 1962 for Chinese descendants, and 1982 for Mormons.
“This is the first one I can think of where we’ve set up a crime for who somebody is,” Ruchti said. He pointed out that even Jim Crow-era legislation that supported discrimination and segregation against Black Americans in the South typically included provisions for “separate but equal” accommodations like restrooms and water fountains.
“Society realized these are humans, they have a need for bathrooms, they have a need for water,” Ruchti said. He later continued, “This isn’t how we treat people in our society.”
The legislation succeeded by a 28-7 margin, with only one Republican casting a dissenting vote.
“I know it’s probably not a popular thing for me to vote no on, but I just can’t support this kind of legislation,” said Senator Jim Guthrie. He described how a transgender man with facial hair and masculine characteristics would face an impossible situation.
“If they go in the bathroom of their biological sex, they’re going to upset a lot of people and freak people out. If they go in the bathroom that is consistent with their looks — they are knowingly and willingly going into the bathroom — that is breaking the law,” Guthrie said. He later continued, “They’re human beings just like us, and what are they supposed to do?”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho criticized the decision and urged the governor to reject the bill.
“This bill’s proposed punishments for using public facilities are extreme and unnecessary,” the organization wrote in a statement, calling the legislation “an unacceptable and discriminatory misuse of our criminal legal system.”
The House approved the measure 54-15 earlier this month. The overwhelming legislative support suggests lawmakers could potentially override any gubernatorial veto.
Heron Greenesmith, deputy policy director at Transgender Law Center, noted that while arrests and civil cases under bathroom laws nationwide seem exceptionally uncommon, these policies create significant impact.
“They embolden and empower vigilantes essentially to feel comfortable persecuting people based on their appearance,” they said.
Logan Casey, director of policy research at Movement Advancement Project, explained that one provision in a Kansas law from February creates ambiguity about whether it applies solely to government facilities or extends to other public spaces. However, he confirmed that Idaho’s would be the first to explicitly target public accommodations broadly.
Casey also observed that in other states where using prohibited bathrooms can result in criminal charges, additional steps are required. For example, Florida only files charges when individuals are asked to leave a bathroom and refuse to comply.
The sole widely documented arrest for violating transgender bathroom restrictions occurred during a Florida protest last year.