BOISE, Idaho — A federal judge has temporarily blocked portions of Idaho's new transgender bathroom law just days before it was set to take effect, ruling that parts of the measure may be too vague to enforce while a lawsuit challenging the law moves forward.
The law, scheduled to take effect July 1, requires people to use certain public restrooms based on their biological sex and creates criminal penalties for some violations.
A group of transgender Idahoans sued the state, arguing portions of the law are unconstitutionally vague and could be enforced inconsistently.
WATCH | What remains in effect under Idaho's bathroom law?
Former Idaho Attorney General David Leroy said the ruling does not strike down the law. Instead, it temporarily prevents prosecutors from enforcing certain restroom provisions while the court considers the case.
"This law cannot and should not be enforced because it may cause irreparable harm to some people," Leroy said, summarizing the court's reasoning for issuing the injunction.
Leroy said understanding the ruling requires understanding the types of restrooms covered by the law.
A single-user restroom is a lockable bathroom designed for one person at a time. Multi-user restrooms are the most common type of facility with multiple stalls.
According to Leroy, the court's order applies to transgender people using single-user restrooms in government buildings and public accommodations, as well as certain multi-user restrooms when a single-user option is not available.
"The court, as to all transgender people, said that the law cannot be enforced until further proceedings of the court," Leroy said.
The judge's concerns centered on whether portions of the law are clear enough to enforce, rather than on the broader question of whether the policy itself is constitutional.
"The law was so vague as to those two terms that a police officer simply had no standards, and someone who wanted to comply with the law had no ability to do so," Leroy said.
Those concerns focused on language in the law such as "reasonably available" and "dire need," which plaintiffs argued lacked clear definitions and could lead to inconsistent enforcement.
The injunction does not apply to every part of the law.
"The law, as it was written, applied to both restrooms, as well as changing rooms. The lawsuit focused only on the restroom aspect," Leroy said.
As a result, the judge's order does not currently address provisions restricting access to changing rooms, locker rooms, and showers based on biological sex.
The preliminary injunction will remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds through federal court.
