Under the Idaho bathroom law signed on March 31, 2026, knowingly entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite biological sex in a government building or a business open to the public is a criminal offense. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. A second offense within five years is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The new statute, House Bill 752, takes effect in July 2026 and sits on top of two earlier laws covering schools and certain state-run facilities.
Which Places the Law Covers
Three separate statutes now regulate restroom access in Idaho, and which one applies depends on where you are.
Senate Bill 1100, signed in 2023 and codified in Idaho Code Title 33, Chapter 67, applies to K-12 public schools. It requires restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities to be separated by biological sex, and it requires schools to offer “reasonable accommodations” to any student who does not wish to use the facility corresponding to their sex assigned at birth. Those accommodations can include a staff restroom or a single-use, gender-neutral facility on campus.
House Bill 264, signed in April 2025, extended the same biological-sex rule to public colleges and universities, correctional facilities, and domestic violence shelters. It covers restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters in those state-run facilities.
HB 752 is the broadest of the three. It reaches government-owned buildings and any “place of public accommodation,” a category that includes restaurants, stores, and other private businesses that serve the public. This is the statute that creates criminal exposure for individuals.
An earlier Idaho law sometimes mentioned in this context, House Bill 500, dealt only with women’s sports participation and did not address restroom access.
Criminal Penalties Under HB 752
HB 752 introduced criminal penalties that did not exist under the earlier bathroom laws. The structure is straightforward:
- A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.
- A second offense within five years is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
The statute reaches only conduct that is “knowing and willful.” A person who enters the wrong restroom by mistake, or who is confused by signage, has a stronger argument that they lacked the required mental state. To convict, a prosecutor would need to show the person deliberately chose to enter a facility designated for the opposite sex.
Exceptions That Prevent Charges
HB 752 lists specific situations in which crossing into an opposite-sex facility does not trigger criminal liability:
- Providing or receiving emergency medical assistance.
- Law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity.
- Custodians, athletic coaches, and people supervising inmates carrying out those duties.
- Helping a child who needs bathroom assistance.
- Dire need, meaning a person urgently needs a restroom and the opposite-sex facility is the only one reasonably available at the time.
The dire-need exception is narrower than it sounds. It requires that no other facility be reasonably available, not that the designated facility is less convenient or has a longer line.
Schools operate under a different framework. Rather than criminal exceptions, SB 1100 obligates schools to work with students and families to arrange alternative access. A school that refuses any accommodation and also blocks a student from their preferred facility faces civil liability.
Civil Lawsuits Against Schools, Institutions, and Businesses
Alongside the criminal penalties in HB 752, all three Idaho statutes let private individuals sue the facility.
Under SB 1100, a student who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a school restroom can sue the school for $5,000 per incident and can seek additional compensation for psychological or emotional harm. The filing deadline is four years from the incident, and parents or guardians can file on behalf of minors.
HB 264 creates a similar right of action against covered state-run facilities, including public universities, correctional facilities, and domestic violence shelters. During legislative debate, one lawmaker characterized the provision as putting “a bounty on the government of $10,000 just simply for somebody being in the wrong room.”
HB 752 extends civil suit provisions to government buildings and private businesses. A business owner whose bathroom policy is found non-compliant can be sued by customers. Legislators from both parties warned during debate that the “reasonable care” standard leaves businesses without clear compliance guidance and exposes them to costly litigation.
For institutions, the exposure runs in more than one direction. A person who encounters someone of the opposite biological sex in a restroom can sue the facility, and a person denied access who believes the denial violates their constitutional rights can also sue. That two-sided risk is likely to persist until Idaho’s courts, and possibly the Ninth Circuit, issue definitive rulings.
Defenses If You’re Charged
Idaho courts have not yet ruled on most of the defenses that criminal defendants and civil defendants are likely to raise, but several are already visible.
The most direct defense in a criminal case is the mental-state requirement. A defendant who did not realize the facility was designated for the opposite sex, or who reasonably believed an exception applied, has a straightforward argument against conviction.
Equal protection challenges are also likely. Defendants may argue that the laws single out transgender individuals for differential treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in other jurisdictions have applied heightened scrutiny to sex-based or transgender-status classifications. The Seventh Circuit’s 2017 decision in Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District found that a school district’s policy barring a transgender student from the boys’ restroom violated both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, applying heightened scrutiny to the sex-based classification.1Justia. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District Idaho, however, sits in the Ninth Circuit, and in a challenge to SB 1100 that court indicated Idaho’s school bathroom law is likely constitutional, which could weaken equal-protection arguments against the newer statutes.
Vagueness challenges are another avenue. Critics argue that HB 752 relies on biological sex without a clear enforcement mechanism, leaving individuals and businesses uncertain what compliance looks like. A court that finds the statute too vague to give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited could strike it down on due-process grounds.
Where Federal Law Stands
Federal law adds complexity, but recent developments have largely reinforced Idaho’s position.
The Biden administration’s 2024 Title IX regulations attempted to add gender identity to the list of characteristics protected from sex-based discrimination in schools receiving federal funding. Idaho challenged those regulations, and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the state’s injunction to stand. Every member of the Court agreed that Idaho was entitled to an injunction against the rule’s central provision redefining sex discrimination to include gender identity.2Idaho Office of the Attorney General. U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Idaho, Rejects Biden-Harris Attempt to Reinstate Radical Anti-Women Title IX Rule Idaho schools are not currently required under federal law to allow students to use restrooms matching their gender identity.
The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County held that firing an employee for being transgender violates Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment.3Supreme Court of the United States. Bostock v. Clayton County The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have extended Bostock‘s reasoning to Title IX and school bathroom access, finding that Title IX prohibits gender-identity-based discrimination in bathroom policies.4United States Congress. Potential Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Other Civil Rights Statutes Dissenting judges have argued that Bostock addressed employment rather than bathrooms and that Title IX’s explicit allowance for sex-separated facilities means the reasoning does not transfer. The Ninth Circuit, which covers Idaho, has not adopted the broader reading.