California's Bonta Backs 20-State Challenge to Idaho's Bathroom Ban

Key Takeaways

• Twenty state attorneys general, including California's Rob Bonta, filed an amicus brief on Aug. 5 against Idaho's HB 264.
• The Idaho law restricts restrooms, locker rooms and sleeping areas in public institutions to biological sex.
• Two transgender college students sued Idaho in July 2025 under the 14th Amendment and Civil Rights Act.
• The brief argues the ban violates equal protection and cites research showing higher depression risk for transgender students denied bathroom access.
• The case could shape legal battles over gender identity policies in public spaces nationwide.

Introduction

A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states is challenging Idaho's ban on transgender people using bathrooms that match their gender identity. The amicus brief, filed Aug. 5, calls House Bill 264 an unconstitutional threat to the safety, privacy and equal protection of transgender students.

What Idaho's HB 264 Does

House Bill 264 took effect July 1, 2025. It requires restrooms, locker rooms and sleeping areas in public institutions to be restricted to male or female use based on biological sex. The law also allows individuals to sue those facilities if they encounter a person of the opposite biological sex in these spaces.

Bill sponsor Rep. Barbara Ehardt and the Alliance Defending Freedom have argued the law protects the privacy, safety and dignity of women and girls in vulnerable public settings.

Arguments in the Amicus Brief

The 20-state coalition rejects that argument. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the ban is an unconstitutional threat to transgender and nonbinary students. He added, "No one should feel uncomfortable or be afraid to use a public restroom because of their gender identity."

The brief says Idaho's law is discriminatory and imposes intrusive restrictions on transgender and nonbinary individuals. It argues the ban violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, which prevents government policies from categorically excluding people. The attorneys general cite City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center as a precedent.

The brief also includes research. A 2022 survey found that 80% of adults who were perceived as transgender in childhood reported very negative experiences with peers, many saying they had been harassed or attacked. Another study linked denial of bathroom access to higher odds of depression and poor mental health among transgender students.

The Students' Lawsuit

In July 2025, two transgender college students filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. They argue HB 264 violates their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement while the case proceeds.

Local California Context

California is part of the coalition, with Attorney General Rob Bonta as a leading voice. California state law already protects transgender students in schools, but the outcome of the Idaho case could influence legal debates in other states, including California.

Background and Broader Implications

Idaho's 2025 law is part of a shifting trend in state legislation that restricts public space access based on biological sex. The amicus brief pushes back by highlighting the benefits of transgender-inclusive spaces, which the authors say improve well-being for all students and support learning.

The brief notes that 94% of transgender adults reported being more satisfied after living consistently with their gender identity. It argues that allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their identity helps education by fostering engagement and interpersonal preparation.

Conclusion

The amicus brief adds legal weight to the students' challenge and urges courts to protect transgender people under equal protection law. A ruling in the Idaho case could set a precedent that reaches far beyond the state.

Sources and Materials

• davisvanguard