A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state of Idaho from implementing a law that could punish transgender people with up to five years in prison for using a public restroom that does not match their assigned gender at birth.
The law, known as HB 752, was scheduled to take effect July 1 after being signed by Republican Gov. Brad Little earlier this year. However, the injunction prohibits police from enforcing the law’s bathroom restrictions. The provision does not apply to similar restrictions on locker room access, which the lead plaintiffs, six transgender Idahoans, are not challenging.
The law prohibits transgender people in Idaho from using public restrooms that are segregated by gender according to their gender identity, regardless of whether the facility is located in a government-owned building or a private business open to the public, such as a gas station, restaurant, entertainment center, or hospital.
First-time violations of the law are punishable by up to one year in prison. For a second or third offense, the penalty increases to a maximum of five years, and prosecutors must comply with the state’spersistent offender”.
The six plaintiffs allege in their lawsuit that the restroom restrictions violate their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection and privacy.
The law was previously opposed by the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Association of Chiefs of Police, who argued there was no practical way to confirm birth sex during field contact without conducting “invasive and inappropriate” interrogations and searches.
They warned that the law would be difficult to enforce and could expose officials to legal liability if they made incorrect assumptions. Additionally, when Chief District Judge Amanda Brailsford questioned state officials about gender confirmation procedures, state officials suggested requiring restroom users to submit to DNA tests, which would be extremely onerous.
Brailsford, who issued the preliminary injunction, determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that the law is unconstitutional, vague, and would suffer “irreparable harm” without an order preventing state and law enforcement officials from arresting and prosecuting transgender people.
Regarding the state’s argument that the law is needed to protect the privacy of women and children in public restrooms, Brailsford wrote:[t]The court did not address the inherent privacy interests associated with restroom use or the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from bad actors. However, Idaho may protect these interests without infringing on plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. As the plaintiffs point out, “the actual safety concerns posed by people entering restrooms ‘designated for biologically opposite sex’ are addressed by Idaho’s current law.”
The City of Brailsford also granted group certification. This means that Idaho authorities cannot enforce the law against the six named plaintiffs and other transgender people who seek to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity in government-owned buildings and public accommodations. She also approved a motion to allow two of the plaintiffs to file the lawsuit under pseudonyms to protect their identities.
Brailsford’s injunction is an interim measure that will remain in place while the court considers the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ lawyers welcomed the ruling.
“While this ruling will allow transgender people across Idaho to find and use public restrooms without fear of arrest, we will continue our long fight to permanently strike down this discriminatory law in the courts,” said Kel Olson, an attorney at Lambda Legal, who is representing the plaintiffs along with the American Civil Liberties Union, its Idaho chapter, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, and Alturas Law Group.
“This decision provides important protection for transgender people in Idaho from efforts by state politicians to completely exclude them from public life,” added Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “No one should have to choose between being threatened with arrest for appearing in public or being threatened with harassment and violence for doing as the state wishes.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
