Our judicial system is designed, partially, to identify incongruities between new and existing legislation. It can be easy to lose track of the Idaho laws being challenged in court, because they’re something we have in abundance.
Here are three of the laws passed by the Idaho Legislature this spring that are being challenged in court:
H.B. 71, Trans Youth Healthcare Ban
Presented as a way to prevent children from receiving gender-affirming healthcare, this bill was opposed by every relevant major medical association, trans advocacy group, and member of Idaho’s trans community. It was signed, with hesitations about parental rights, by Gov. Brad Little in April.
H.B. 71 would make providing gender-affirming care — including puberty blockers which aren’t used exclusively by trans kids — a felony with a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
Plaintiffs & Claims
Families of two teenage girls filed to sue the state in June, saying that if the law goes into effect as scheduled in January, it would ban the hormone therapy they’re already receiving. Those therapies are banned only for trans youth in this law, which they saw is unequal treatment.
The parents also say the law infringes on their right to make decisions about their children’s medical care.
S.B. 1100, Trans Youth Bathroom Ban
This bill flew a bit under the radar, perhaps because it focuses on internal school policies. Similar bills defined the 2015-2020 legal push to restrict trans people from bathrooms and locker rooms. S.B. 1100 went into effect on July 1.
Under the law, trans youth are banned from using the bathrooms and locker rooms of their gender in Idaho public schools.
Plaintiffs & Claims
Rather than target the attorney general’s office, this lawsuit is aimed at top state and district education officials. The plaintiff is a Boise seventh-grade student who is being represented by Lambda Legal. The student’s attorney’s say the law violates Title IX by outing students and discriminating on the basis of sex, and also violated the 14th Amendment.
While lawmakers claim that Idaho's "abortion trafficking" ban isn't intended to restrict travel, plaintiffs see it as an extension on the state's other abortion bans. (Idaho Statesman / Getty)
H.B. 242, “Abortion Trafficking” Ban
The Idaho Legislature had several abortion trigger bans ready for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But in this law, Idaho is making history with the nation’s first travel ban. It went into effect on May 1.
The goal of H.B. 242 is to prevent adults from helping minors get abortion care in other states, like neighboring Oregon and Washington, where abortions are legal.
Plaintiffs & Claims
Lourdes Matsumoto, an Idaho attorney who deals with cases of domestic and sexual violence, is the leading plaintiff in the lawsuit against this bill, and is joined by the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance.
They claim the law is too vague to be enforceable, and that it violates First Amendment rights. They also warn that this ban could be a “slippery slope” toward banning travel for adults.
