Full Breakdown
Idaho’s New Bathroom Law and the Proposed DNA-Testing Enforcement
6/14/2026, 4:18:32 AM
Law’s Core Requirements and Penalties
House Bill 752, signed by Governor Brad Little, takes effect on July 1. It mandates that anyone using a public restroom or changing facility must do so in the space that corresponds to the sex assigned at birth. A first-time violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison; a second offense within five years escalates to a felony carrying up to five years. The statute applies to government-owned buildings and any private business that serves the public.
Legislative History and Enforcement Dilemma
The bill passed the Idaho Legislature on a party-line vote, joining similar bans in Kansas, Florida and Utah. Lawmakers presented the measure as protecting privacy and safety, yet the longstanding question of how to verify a person’s sex without intrusive inquiry resurfaced during a federal hearing. Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian argued that DNA testing could resolve the issue. The plaintiffs—six transgender Idahoans—are represented by Lambda Legal’s Kell Olson, a transgender man, and by the ACLU of Idaho’s Emily Croston. The case is before U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford, appointed by President Joe Biden. The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police have publicly called the enforcement plan impractical.
Official Statements & Judicial Inquiry
When Judge Brailsford asked how the state would enforce the law given that many plaintiffs hold IDs reflecting their gender identity, Zarian replied that enforcement “should be straightforward because there is DNA testing.” He added that a person might not need to consent and expressed doubt that anyone would be asked to submit a sample on the spot. Brailsford noted for the record that most plaintiffs possess state-issued IDs matching their gender, underscoring the difficulty of using documentation as proof. The state has offered no concrete standard for when DNA testing would be triggered.
Criticism, Opposition, and Practical Concerns
Critics contend that DNA testing raises profound privacy issues and would require law enforcement to first suspect a restroom user of being transgender—a judgment based on appearance. Olson warned that the law forces transgender people to choose between entering a “illegal” restroom or risking harassment, assault, or police calls. Croston questioned the feasibility of “identifying someone’s biological sex” at a doorway, calling the notion “ridiculous.” Both the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Fraternal Order of Police labeled the enforcement scheme “impractical and unworkable.” Legal experts note that forensic DNA analysis typically takes weeks or months, not the instant verification the state envisions.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The state’s claim that DNA testing could be used “on the spot” conflicts with standard forensic practice, which usually requires laboratory processing and a judicial warrant. Zarian suggested consent might not be required, while Olson emphasized that DNA testing normally requires a warrant. No criteria have been disclosed for the level of suspicion that would justify testing, leaving a critical gap in the law’s practical application.
Verbatim Quotes
- “There is DNA testing.” — Michael Zarian, Idaho Solicitor General
- “If I just go to a restaurant with my family and want to wash my hands before dinner, this law comes into play. Now I have to stop and decide, do I — if this law is in effect — do I go into the restroom that is illegal now, the men’s room?” — Kell Olson, Lambda Legal attorney, trans man
- “HB 752 does make Idaho less safe for transgender people. It threatens serious and immediate harm, no matter what trans people do,” — Kell Olson, Lambda Legal attorney
- “I don’t think the state has an answer for how you identify someone’s biological sex… Are we just going to look at folks as they enter a restroom and determine whether we think they look enough like a man or a woman? That’s ridiculous.” — Emily Croston, ACLU of Idaho attorney
- “Lambda’s Olson told the court that DNA testing usually requires a warrant.” — Kell Olson, Lambda Legal attorney
What’s Next
Judge Brailsford is expected to rule soon on a preliminary injunction that could block enforcement of HB 752 while the constitutional challenge proceeds. An injunction would delay the law’s July 1 effective date; a denial would allow the criminal penalties to take effect despite the unresolved enforcement mechanism. Advocacy groups have pledged continued litigation and public outreach.
