Idaho transgender bathroom law blocked by federal judge in preliminary injunction

A federal judge temporarily blocked Idaho from enforcing a newly enacted transgender bathroom law, issuing a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from applying the measure while a lawsuit proceeds. U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruled on Tuesday that Idaho cannot enforce the law in its current form as the case moves forward.

The state measure at issue makes it a crime for transgender individuals to use a restroom that does not correspond with their sex assigned at birth. Under the judge’s order, Idaho is barred from enforcing that criminal provision during the litigation, according to the report of the decision.

Brailsford granted the injunction after considering the legal challenge brought against the Idaho law. The preliminary order halts enforcement pending further proceedings, meaning the state’s criminal penalties tied to restroom use are not applicable to the circumstances described in the law while the court reviews the case.

The decision centers on the court’s determination, at the preliminary stage, that the plaintiffs’ claims warrant temporary relief. Preliminary injunctions are designed to preserve the status quo so that the court can later address the merits, rather than requiring the parties to wait until the end of the case for any potential relief.

Idaho’s approach treats restroom access as a matter for criminal enforcement, and the court’s action therefore has practical implications for how the state would implement the law. If enforcement were to resume, it could involve complaints, investigation, and prosecution under Idaho’s criminal statutes. With the injunction in place, those enforcement steps cannot proceed based on the blocked provision.

The ruling also affects how the state will regulate restroom use across government and private settings if the law is applied through complaint-driven enforcement or other compliance mechanisms. Until the court reaches a final decision, the legal status of the measure remains in dispute, and Idaho must comply with the terms of the injunction.

It was not immediately clear from the report what procedural deadlines the court set next or what specific arguments each side will pursue as the case continues. Further hearings or motions would typically determine whether the injunction becomes longer-lasting or is modified, dissolved, or replaced by a final judgment.