A federal judge has ruled in favor of an Idaho law requiring public school students to use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their biological sex.

According to The Christian Post, the decision upholds Idaho's Senate Bill 1100, concluding it does not violate the U.S. Constitution or Title IX, and affirms long-standing practices of separating facilities by sex in public education.

On a Thursday earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge David Nye upheld the constitutionality of the law, stating that sex-based distinctions in school facilities remain permissible to preserve students’ privacy. The law restricts restroom and locker room access based on biological sex, regardless of a student’s self-identified gender. It applies to all K-12 students in public schools across the state.

Legal challenge initiated by student advocacy group

The law was challenged by the Boise High School Sexuality and Gender Alliance, a student-led advocacy group. The plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1100 infringes on students’ constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause and violates federal Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination. However, the court disagreed.

In his decision, Judge Nye emphasized that separating restrooms by biological sex has been practiced for centuries and serves a legitimate need to protect privacy among different sexes. He said the law continues a historical policy necessary in communal spaces that involve bodily exposure.

“There are biological differences between men and women,” Nye wrote. “Those differences warrant privacy, and the state’s policy aligns with that interest.”

Attorneys argue state responsibility in school settings

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador defended the law in court, arguing that the state has both the authority and the obligation to enforce policies that maintain student safety and dignity. Labrador emphasized that labeling sex-based policies as discriminatory ignores the underlying goal to protect every student’s privacy.

Labrador referred to the court's ruling as “another victory for common sense,” stating the outcome ensures each child has access to education in an environment that protects their personal space. He argued that recognizing biological reality in policy is essential to avoiding confusion and conflict in schools.

His office partnered with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization that supports legislation on biological definitions of sex, to defend the statute throughout the trial and subsequent appeals process.

The ruling receives national attention and legal precedent

Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, praised the decision. “Girls deserve safety and dignity in private spaces,” Scruggs said, asserting that the court's conclusion affirms legitimate differences between sexes in contexts involving nudity or privacy.

The legal process was prolonged after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially granted a stay on the law. That stay was later lifted when the higher court upheld Judge Nye’s ruling earlier in 2025, clearing the way for Senate Bill 1100 to remain in effect during continued litigation.

Senate Bill 1100 was passed by Idaho lawmakers in 2023 amid growing national debates about privacy and gender identity in educational settings. In 2025, the state expanded comparable regulations to include colleges and universities through House Bill 264.

Context of national controversies and responses

Supporters of Idaho’s law point to several national incidents that triggered concern about unrestricted access to restrooms and locker rooms based on gender identity. The 2022 controversy at the University of Pennsylvania, where female swim team members expressed extreme discomfort sharing a locker room with a trans-identified male athlete, drew widespread attention.

In that case, NCAA swimmer Lia (Will) Thomas competed on the women’s team despite retaining male anatomy and reportedly being attracted to women. The female athletes claimed the situation caused them emotional distress and privacy violations.

Another high-profile case occurred in 2021 in Loudoun County, Virginia. A gender-fluid male student was found responsible for sexually assaulting female classmates in school bathrooms, a situation that pushed the school district into the national spotlight for allegedly covering up the incident while considering policies accommodating gender identity.

Growing list of states adopting similar measures

Idaho is not alone in implementing such policies. It is one of eight states — including Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia — that have enacted laws requiring K-12 students to use facilities consistent with their sex assigned at birth.

Additionally, six states have laws affecting all government buildings, not just schools. These include Arkansas, Florida, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, which require individuals to use bathrooms according to their biological sex in public facilities.

Meanwhile, five other states have passed laws similar to Idaho’s for school settings specifically. Iowa, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia have enacted such mandates for K-12 public schools.

Ongoing legal and cultural implications

Backers of these laws argue they reflect long-standing public values and respond to concerns voiced by parents and students. They see them as proactive steps to avoid potential invasions of privacy and disruptions in learning environments.

Opponents contend such measures marginalize transgender youth and reinforce harmful stereotypes. However, the courts, including the Ninth Circuit in this case, have indicated that privacy concerns based on sex can constitute a valid legal basis for bathroom separation policies.

The Idaho case continues to be cited by both sides of the debate as pressure builds nationally for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. For now, the ruling represents a key legal precedent for other states considering similar legislation.