Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Idaho Transgender Bathroom Bill

06.05.2025

On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to deny a challenge to an Idaho law which required all public school students to use bathrooms and changing facilities according to their biological sex. (Roe v. Critchfield, (2025) 131 F.4th 975.)

Factual Background:

On March 22, 2023, the Idaho Legislature passed the Senate Bill (“SB”) 1100 titled “Privacy and Safety of Students in Public Schools,” which required students in Idaho public schools to use the changing rooms, shower rooms, and bathrooms designated to their biological sex, with limited exceptions.[1]  The bill also required that public schools provide a single-occupancy facility as a reasonable accommodation for students who, “for any reason, is unwilling or unable to use a multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility designed for the person’s sex.”  Prior to the law being enacted, Idaho school districts were free to regulate the use of locker rooms, changing rooms, and shower rooms.  About one quarter of school districts permitted students to use facilities corresponding with their gender identity.

In this case, Roe, a 12-year-old transgender girl, desired to use restrooms and changing facilities consistent with her gender identity.  She and the Boise High School’s Sexuality and Gender Alliance (“SAGA”) (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”) challenged the Idaho law by filing a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction.  Petitioners claimed SB 1100 violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to privacy. An Idaho district court held that Petitioners’ preliminary injunction was unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim, and Petitioners failed to demonstrate the elements required for a preliminary injunction. Petitioners appealed the district court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit.[2]

Ninth Circuit Ruling

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Petitioners failed to establish all the elements of a preliminary injunction and agreed with the district court that Petitioners had not established they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The Ninth Circuit based its decision on Petitioners’ failure to prove their claims based on Equal Protection, Title IX, and right to privacy.

On the Equal Protection claim, the Ninth Circuit held that, in applying intermediate scrutiny, SB 1100 was not discriminatory.[3] The Ninth Circuit agreed that protecting bodily privacy was an important governmental objective, especially for school-aged children, and that excluding students from their sex-assigned facilities was a permissible means to achieve that objective.  As such, the Ninth Circuit found the Idaho law was not unconstitutional, on its face, under the Equal Protection Clause.

On the Title IX claim, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that Title IX allows states to maintain sex-segregated facilities. To prove a Title IX claim, “a plaintiff must [establish] that: (1) the defendant educational institutional receives federal funding; (2) the plaintiff was excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity, and (3) the latter occurred on the basis of sex.” (Id. at 9, citing Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir. 2020) 967 F.3d 940, 946.) The Court explained that “the parties’ dispute narrows to a disagreement regarding the definition of ‘sex’ as used in Title IX.”  The Court did not reach the question of whether “sex” as used in Title IX authorizes schools to limit students’ use of facilities based on sex assigned at birth and noted that different federal circuits have reached different conclusions. As such, the Court concluded the State of Idaho did not have clear notice that Title IX prohibited the exclusion of transgender students from the facilities covered by SB 1100 when it accepted federal funds. As a result, the Ninth Circuit held Petitioners failed to meet their burden on the Title IX claim.

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged a lack of precedent on whether transgender status falls under the category of information protected by privacy rights. However, if such information was protected, SB 1100 requires Idaho public schools to provide an accommodation to any student who is unable or unwilling to use a multi-occupant restroom or changing room. Therefore, due to the statute’s allowance of single-occupancy facility use by all students, the Ninth Circuit determined such use would not inherently disclose a student’s transgender status.

In summary, the Court determined that Petitioners failed to demonstrate the need for a preliminary injunction through their allegations involving discrimination, Title IX , and privacy rights.  Based on the analysis above, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to deny Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction of SB 1100.

Impact on California Public Schools:

Although this case analyzed an Idaho statute, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is important for California educational entities as the ruling is binding on California federal courts.  It demonstrates what the Ninth Circuit considers when deciding whether to grant an injunction that stays the enforcement of legislation, even when implicating students’ civil rights. Moreover, this case highlights the evolving nature of case law governing student transgender rights and the intersection of Equal Protection, Title IX, and the Right to Privacy.

If you have any questions concerning this alert, please contact the authors of this alert or any AALRR attorney for guidance.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2025 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

[1] Exceptions include cleaning and maintenance, administering medical aid, and other rare or emergency circumstances.

[2] We note, the Ninth Circuit ruling only addressed the preliminary injunction sought by the Petitioners’ and did not address the underlying merits of the complaint. 

[3] Intermediate Scrutiny, a standard used by courts to test constitutionality, requires the government to show that a law which discriminates against a protected classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. (See U.S. v. Virginia (1996) 518 U.S. 515.)