Bill Description: House Bill 607 would require government buildings and public accommodations to ensure that the privacy and safety of an individual is protected from members of the other sex in restrooms and changing rooms.
Rating: 0
NOTE: House Bill 607 deals with single-sex restrooms and changing rooms. It is related to House Bill 606 (2026); House Bill 264 (2025), which became law; House Bill 190 (2025); and House Bill 49 (2025).
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
House Bill 607 would create Chapter 48, Title 67, Idaho Code, titled “Protecting Privacy and Safety in Government Buildings”. This chapter would require that “every government building restroom or changing facility accessible by multiple individuals at the same time” be “designated for use by male individuals only or female individuals only” and “used only by individuals of the sex corresponding to” this designation.
The bill would make exceptions for single-occupancy restrooms and changing facilities, maintenance, cleaning, law enforcement, medical assistance, parents or guardians providing assistance, emergencies, and other related scenarios.
Enforcement would be handled through a private cause of action against the government entity by someone who, “while accessing or using a government building multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility designated for use by the individual's sex, encounters a member of the other sex.”
The plaintiff would receive $10,000 from the defendant government entity for each instance if it is determined that “the government entity gave the member of the other sex permission to use the restroom or changing facility designated for use by the individual's sex” or it “failed to take reasonable steps to prohibit the member of the other sex from accessing the restroom or changing facility designated for use by the individual's sex.”
The plaintiff may also recover monetary damages from the defendant government entity for “all psychological, emotional, and physical harm suffered” and for “reasonable attorney's fees and costs.”
The bill does not define “reasonable steps” or clarify what level of security or regulated access may be required in order to satisfy this standard.
The bill clarifies that this law would preempt “any law, regulation, policy, or decree enacted or adopted by any government entity within the state that purports to permit or require government entities to allow individuals to use restrooms and changing facilities in government buildings designated for use by the other sex.”
The bill is designed to protect the privacy and security of people (primarily women) to use single-sex restrooms and changing rooms without being confronted or embarrassed by someone of the opposite sex.
(+1)
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
In addition to the new chapter discussed above, House Bill 607 would create Chapter 40, Title 6, Idaho Code, titled Liability for Places of Public Accommodation.
This chapter would declare that “every place of public accommodation shall have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the privacy and safety of an individual is protected from members of the other sex in every restroom or changing facility maintained by the place of public accommodation.”
It would define a “place of public accommodation” as a “business, accommodation, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, or transportation facility of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.”
The bill would make exceptions for single-occupancy restrooms and changing facilities, maintenance, cleaning, law enforcement, medical assistance, parents or guardians providing assistance, emergencies, and other related scenarios.
The bill clarifies that this law would preempt “any law, regulation, policy, or decree enacted or adopted by any government entity within the state that purports to permit or require places of public accommodation to permit individuals to use restrooms and changing facilities designated for use by the other sex.”
The bill says, “A place of public accommodation that breaches its duty of care” with respect to the “reasonable steps” mandate “shall be liable for all damages attributable to its negligence, including any psychological, emotional, and physical harm.”
As with the chapter dealing with government, this chapter does not define “reasonable steps” or clarify what level of security or regulated access may be required in order to satisfy this standard.
While government imposing an unclear standard on itself may be forgivable, doing so on the private sector demands more scrutiny. Most stores and businesses do not actively police who uses public restrooms, instead relying on the common sense and decency of its patrons to respect the restrooms’ designations. Will such a standard now expose businesses to potential lawsuits and financial judgements?
Even if a business required someone wishing to use a restroom to obtain a key or explicit permission, it is unclear how an employee would be expected to determine the sex of the individual if their appearance did not clearly conform with their claimed identity.
(-1)
