Idaho cannot immediately enforce its new law criminalizing the use of certain restrooms that do not match an individual’s sex at birth, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
The ruling provides a temporary reprieve for transgender people in Idaho, who faced up to five years in prison for using restrooms that match their gender identity. The state’s law, which is seen as the most restrictive measure on this issue in the country, was to go into effect on July 1.
Six transgender Idaho residents brought the case, arguing that the statute violates their constitutional rights to equal protection and to shield personal information from disclosure. But Judge Amanda K. Brailsford of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho said it was not necessary to consider those claims, because the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their third claim: that the law is unconstitutionally vague.
In granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Brailsford, wrote that the law is likely to be unconstitutional because it requires individual officers to make subjective decisions, including an assessment of a person’s biological sex.
The law “imposes criminal penalties — up to a felony for repeat violations — yet leaves critical enforcement decisions to the unguided discretion of individual officers,’’ she wrote.
Judge Brailsford was appointed by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The decision blocks a portion of the Idaho law from being enforced while the case proceeds. The ruling allows transgender people to use single-stall restrooms that correspond to their gender identity, or multi-user restrooms when single-user restrooms are occupied or there are none available on the same floor. The plaintiffs are not challenging the portion of the law that covers locker rooms and showers.
Twenty states besides Idaho restrict transgender people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks state-level legislation on L.G.B.T.Q. issues. But the restrictions elsewhere apply only to schools and colleges, government-owned buildings and public places like parks and airports.
Idaho’s measure is viewed as the most restrictive such law in the nation because of its broad application and because of the penalties it imposes. Repeat violators face up to five years in prison. The law covers restrooms in all publicly owned buildings as well as privately owned settings such as restaurants, retail stores and business offices. It includes bathrooms with a single stall. Idaho’s law also applies more immediately, including no provision like the one in Florida that requires a transgender person to refuse to leave a bathroom that does not match their sex at birth in order to establish a violation.
State officials argue that even if the law is challenging to enforce, it is not unconstitutionally vague because it is clear about what must be proved. They noted that a person’s biological sex could be determined later through objective means, such as a birth certificate or DNA testing, even if it cannot be done at the scene.
But Judge Brailsford said that as the Idaho law is written, law enforcement officials would most likely need to make “moment-to-moment” judgments about whether a violation has occurred. It would be hard to ensure uniform enforcement based on officers’ individual perceptions of people, she said.
In her decision, Judge Brailsford also focused on the statute’s exemptions, which allow individuals to use an opposite-sex restroom if they have a “dire need”, or when a single-use facility is the only one “reasonably available.” Those terms, she said, are likely to lead to arbitrary enforcement. In her 30-page opinion, she noted that several Idaho law enforcement groups had urged the lawmakers not to pass the measure.
“Different officers could reasonably reach different conclusions regarding identical conduct,’’ the judge wrote, “not because the facts differ, but because the statute furnishes no standards by which those facts are to be evaluated.”
Idaho has already enacted two laws, one for primary schools and another for colleges, that require people to use bathrooms matching their sex at birth.
In court documents, plaintiffs said they feared causing distress to others when using bathrooms that match their birth sex, and risking becoming a target of harassment. One of the plaintiffs, Diego Fable, 37, a transgender man, for instance, has a full beard as a result of cross-sex hormone therapy, and has been using male bathrooms since he transitioned six years ago.
Idaho officials said the law would “curtail the rising number of men committing video voyeurism in women’s restrooms,” and allay concerns like those voiced by residents last year after someone said they encountered a transgender woman using the women’s restroom at a Y.M.C.A. in Sandpoint.
Judge Brailsford said she recognized the state’s “valid interest in promoting bodily privacy and protecting women and children in public restrooms from those who may seek to do harm,’’ but she said that existing laws already accomplish that. She cited an opinion issued by another federal judge in Idaho last year which described safety as “not a persuasive justification” for barring transgender people from using restrooms that correspond to their identity.
Anna Griffin contributed reporting.
The post Federal Judge Blocks Idaho Law Criminalizing Transgender Bathroom Use appeared first on New York Times.
