Idaho’s 5-year transgender bathroom ban partially blocked: HR compliance shift

For HR leaders, a criminal statute dictating who can use which restroom isn’t just a social issue—it’s a direct workplace compliance challenge. Idaho’s law, now partially blocked, threatened a five-year prison sentence for any transgender person using a multi-stall public restroom that doesn’t match their assigned sex at birth. With many businesses operating facilities open to the public, this ruling demands an immediate review of restroom policies, signage, and employee training to avoid legal exposure while supporting an inclusive workplace.

A federal judge has partially blocked Idaho’s sweeping new law that would have criminalized transgender people for using public restrooms that align with their gender identity, a decision that reshapes enforcement of one of the nation’s most restrictive bathroom-access statutes. On June 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford granted a preliminary injunction that stops the state from fully enforcing the law, which was slated to take effect on July 1 and carried penalties of up to five years in prison. The ruling, issued from the federal courthouse in Boise, allows transgender individuals to continue using single-stall restrooms matching their gender identity, and to use multi-stall facilities when no single-stall option exists on the same floor. Meanwhile, the state remains free to enforce the ban in multi-user bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities that were not directly challenged in the lawsuit.

“

Idaho’s law, now partially blocked, threatened a five-year prison sentence for any transgender person using a multi-stall public restroom that doesn’t match their assigned sex at birth.

The statute at issue is the most restrictive among roughly 20 state-level laws adopted across the U.S. that limit transgender people’s access to facilities corresponding with their gender identity. Idaho’s version stands out for its criminal penalties: a conviction could send a person to prison for up to five years. The law was challenged in a class-action lawsuit arguing that it violates the plaintiffs’ rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy under the 14th Amendment. Judge Brailsford’s 30-page opinion focused on the due process claim, finding that the law enforcement provisions were unconstitutionally vague—a determination sufficient, she wrote, to override the state’s public safety arguments and grant a temporary block without needing to reach the equal protection or privacy questions.

The injunction is both a victory for transgender rights advocates and a carefully calibrated legal order. By allowing enforcement to proceed in multi-stall spaces but carving out single-stall and no-available-single-stall exceptions, the court acknowledged the state’s interest in regulating public accommodations while recognizing the real-world harm that immediate, full enforcement could cause. The plaintiffs had sought a narrowly tailored injunction targeting what they saw as the most onerous parts of the law, yet their ultimate goal is a final ruling that throws out all restroom restrictions entirely. The case is now proceeding toward that broader judgment.

For employers, especially those with public-facing workplaces in Idaho—such as retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and healthcare facilities—this ruling injects immediate compliance complexity. While the law primarily targets public restrooms, any business that serves the public could be affected. An HR department in a multistate organization must now navigate a patchwork where Idaho law still criminalizes use of multi-stall restrooms that don’t match sex assigned at birth, but exempts single-stall facilities under the injunction. That means an employer could theoretically face liability if an employee or customer uses a multi-stall restroom contrary to the statute, though the court’s vagueness finding may limit prosecutions. Practically, many businesses may choose to convert multi-stall restrooms to single-user or family-style facilities to avoid risk, echoing strategies seen in other states with similar laws.

The broader climate of anti-transgender legislation continues to intensify. Idaho’s law is part of a wave that has seen more than 650 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures in 2025 and 2026, according to advocacy groups. The court’s due process rationale—that the law’s enforcement provisions are too vague to give fair notice—could influence litigation in other states. If the Idaho plaintiffs ultimately succeed in striking down the law entirely, it would be a significant constitutional rebuke to the movement. Conversely, if the law is upheld on final review, it could embolden other states to pass even more punitive measures.