Two transgender students have filed suit in federal court seeking an injunction against Idaho‘s new House Bill 264, which mandates use of dormitories, restrooms, and locker rooms based strictly on sex assigned at birth. The lawsuit claims the law violates equal protection under the 14th Amendment, Title IX, and privacy rights, and could bar plaintiffs from facilities matching their gender identity when the 2025–26 school year begins.
Idaho’s HB 264 took effect July 1, 2025, and applies to public colleges and universities, prisons, jails, and domestic violence shelters. State-run facilities must designate gender-specific spaces solely based on biological sex; transgender students seeking to use facilities aligned with gender identity may sue the institution involved.
The complaint argues HB 264 will bar plaintiffs from using restrooms that align with gender identity or how they are perceived on campus. The suit cites violations of Title IX protections against sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funding.
Federal courts have previously upheld Idaho laws limiting restroom access by transgender students. In March 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel declined to block a prior law restricting restroom use by biological sex, ruling the law likely did not breach equal-protection or Title IX standards. That decision underpins current legal precedent favoring state authority over gendered spaces.
LLambda Legal and the student plaintiffs seek immediate relief to prevent implementation of HB 264 before the new academic year. They assert the law would stigmatize transgender youth and deny them full participation in campus life.
Supporters of HB 264 say the law protects privacy and safety in sensitive settings. Idaho lawmakers and the governor maintain biological sex is objective and exclusion from women’s facilities ensures modesty and security. The law’s private enforcement provision enables individuals to sue state entities housing someone of the opposite sex into same-gender spaces.
States including Utah recently enacted similar bans; as in Idaho, Utah restricts transgender students to dorms matching biological sex while offering single rooms as alternatives.
Federal courts will assess whether the law infringes on constitutional protections and requirement under Title IX, while defendants argue it simply upholds traditional definitions of sex categories and ensures privacy within public higher education settings.
