Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding safety and privacy in certain covered entities and to provide for remedies.
House Bill 264 creates a new chapter in Idaho Code titled “Protecting the Privacy of Women.” It requires certain covered entities — state correctional facilities, domestic violence shelters, juvenile correctional centers, and state educational institutions — to designate multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters for exclusive use by either females or males. The bill also prohibits individuals from entering a designated facility for the opposite sex, subject to listed exceptions for custodial work, medical care, law enforcement, emergencies, single-user facilities, temporary redesignation, athletic coaching/training, and assisting a family member or other authorized person.
The bill further requires covered entities to take reasonable steps to provide privacy from members of the opposite sex and allows covered entities to establish single-occupancy or family facilities or to redesignate spaces. For state educational institutions, it creates a specific accommodation process for students or employees who are unwilling or unable to use sex-designated multi-occupancy facilities, but the accommodation may not include access to an opposite-sex facility while persons of that sex are present or could be present. The bill also creates a private cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, with a two-year limitations period and attorney’s fees for prevailing plaintiffs, if a covered entity allows opposite-sex access or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
The bill would add a new chapter to Title 67 of the Idaho Code and impose new operational and legal requirements on specified state-run or state-affiliated facilities. It affects correctional facilities, domestic violence shelters, juvenile correctional centers, and public postsecondary institutions by mandating sex-segregated use of certain multi-occupancy spaces and by creating enforceable privacy obligations. It also exposes covered entities to civil litigation if they permit opposite-sex access or fail to prevent it, and it authorizes attorney’s fees for successful plaintiffs, increasing potential legal and compliance costs for the state and its institutions.
The voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support in both chambers, passing the House 61-9, the Senate 27-6, and the House again 59-9 after Senate amendments. That pattern indicates broad majority backing for the bill’s stated privacy and safety goals. The absence of committee transcript material limits direct insight into debate, but the strong vote margins suggest the measure was viewed positively by most legislators.
The main point of contention is the bill’s sex-based access restrictions in restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters, especially as applied to state educational institutions and other public facilities. Supporters appear to frame the measure as protecting privacy, safety, and sex-separated spaces, while opponents likely object to its treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals and to the private right of action that could lead to lawsuits against covered entities. The accommodation language for students and employees at educational institutions may also be a point of dispute because it requires alternatives but does not allow access to opposite-sex facilities when those spaces are occupied or could be occupied.