Originally posted on IdahoEdNews.org on August 14, 2025
(UPDATED, 4:49 p.m., with additional comment from the law firm representing the Boise High School student group.)
BOISE, ID – A state law restricting transgender student access to school bathrooms is fully in effect, for the time being, after a flurry of motions in federal courts.
The legal maneuvers were narrow in scope — focused only on Boise High School. But they continued, and did not conclude, the ongoing courtroom battle over the law. Passed in 2023, Senate Bill 1100 requires students to use bathrooms consistent with their sex assigned at birth. The law has been under appeal for more than two years.
Here’s a rundown of what happened in the past week, and what could happen next.
The Boise High School issue
Attorneys for the Sexuality and Gender Alliance, or SAGA — a Boise High student group — took their case to two federal courts. They wanted a federal judge to block enforcement of the state law, but only at Boise High. And they wanted this to happen by Tuesday, the first day of the school year.
Boise-based U.S. District Court Judge David Nye denied a motion on Aug. 7. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit followed suit on Tuesday.
Attorneys for SAGA said they were only seeking to keep the status quo — by allowing Boise students to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, as they have for nearly a decade.
“As transgender students navigate back-to-school week, the first thing they encounter should not be discrimination,” said Peter Renn, an attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund of Los Angeles, in a Monday filing with the Circuit Court.
Beyond the arguments over legal procedure, attorneys also sparred over access. SB 1100 requires schools to provide “reasonable accommodation” for students who are unwilling or unable to use bathrooms aligned with their sex assigned at birth.
“Boise High School has a number of single-occupancy restrooms that may be accessed by any student,” Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s legal team said in a Circuit Court response to Lambda’s motion.
Renn dismissed this argument.
“It is profoundly stigmatizing and humiliating to be stripped of access to the same communal facilities as everyone else and instead forced to go elsewhere,” he wrote. ”Single-user restrooms are also not even located in every building on campus, and they are not remotely comparable even where they do exist.”
What happens next: a federal court appeal
While SB 1100 is intact, at Boise High and across the state, it also remains in legal limbo.
Lambda Legal has appealed to the Circuit Court, seeking to overturn the law, and has sought an injunction from the court. If the court issues an injunction, SB 1100 could again be on hold.
“We’re hopeful that the appeals court will hit pause on this law while the appeal is being decided, just as it did before,” Renn said in a statement to Idaho EdNews Thursday. “Every day that transgender students at Boise High are told that they have to go somewhere else, and that they don’t belong with everyone else, is a day they can’t get back. Eventually, it’s hard as a young person not to internalize the message that you don’t deserve basic dignity in your everyday life.”
The appeal hinges on two points. Opponents say SB 1100 violates students’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection, since they cannot use school facilities aligned with their gender identity. They also say the state law violates Title IX, a landmark federal education law that prohibits discrimination based on sex.
In his ruling last week, Nye said Lambda Legal was unlikely to win on appeal. And in a news release, Labrador was quick to seize on that point.
“Idaho’s law reflects biological reality, protecting all students’ privacy and safety in school restrooms, showers, locker rooms, and other private spaces,” he said. “This is yet another victory for common sense and the dignity of women and girls against activists seeking to push a harmful agenda.”
As he ruled to keep SB 1100 intact at Boise High, Nye also noted the complexity of the issue, and seemed to recognize the stakes of the appeal.
“Real people — real teenagers, who are simply trying to live their lives and are ill-suited to recognize the nuances of technical legal arguments — are on the receiving end of the court’s decision, whichever way the court rules.”
