Idaho officials are facing sharp criticism after suggesting that DNA testing could be used to enforce one of the nation’s strictest bathroom laws targeting transgender people. The comments came during a federal court hearing challenging House Bill 752, a law set to take effect on July 1 that would criminalize the use of public restrooms and changing facilities that do not align with a person’s sex assigned at birth.
The law applies not only to government-owned buildings but also to private businesses open to the public, including restaurants, shopping centers, hospitals, airports, and entertainment venues. A first violation can result in a misdemeanor charge carrying up to one year in jail. Repeat offenses can escalate to felony charges with prison sentences of up to five years. Under Idaho’s persistent violator statute, repeated convictions could potentially lead to life imprisonment.
The controversy intensified when Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford questioned state attorneys about how the law could realistically be enforced. Many transgender people possess government-issued identification reflecting their gender identity, making it difficult for law enforcement to determine a person’s sex assigned at birth based on documents alone.
In response, Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian argued that enforcement could be accomplished through DNA testing. He further suggested that consent might not always be required, although he acknowledged such testing would not likely occur immediately during a restroom encounter.
Attorneys representing six transgender Idaho residents challenging the law called the suggestion alarming and legally questionable. Lambda Legal attorney Kell Olson argued that compelling DNA testing would generally require a warrant and warned that the law places transgender people in impossible situations. Olson told the court that transgender individuals could face harassment, assault, or police intervention regardless of which restroom they choose to use.
Civil rights advocates also questioned whether the law can be enforced without encouraging invasive scrutiny of people’s appearances. Emily Croston of the ACLU of Idaho criticized the state’s lack of a clear enforcement mechanism, arguing that officers and members of the public would effectively be asked to judge whether someone looks “male enough” or “female enough” to enter a restroom.
Notably, law enforcement organizations previously expressed concerns about the legislation. The Idaho Fraternal Order of Police warned lawmakers that determining a person’s sex assigned at birth could require questioning or investigative actions that many would view as invasive and inappropriate.
Judge Brailsford has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would block enforcement of the restroom provisions while the lawsuit proceeds. Her decision is expected before the law’s July 1 effective date.
