2026-06-17 02:13:36 UTC / 路透社
作者：史蒂夫·戈尔曼
2026年6月17日 世界标准时间凌晨2:13 更新于1小时前
- 爱达荷州“浴室法案”被认为是美国最严苛的同类法案
- 法案要求根据出生性别使用公共浴室
- 法官支持该法案存在宪法模糊性的主张
6月16日（路透社）——一名联邦法官周二禁止爱达荷州全面执行一项新州法，该法案将跨性别者使用与其出生时指定性别不符的公共浴室定为犯罪，最高可判处五年监禁。
这项爱达荷州法案是美国约20个州出台的限制跨性别者使用符合其性别认同的浴室的各类法律中最严苛的一项，原定于7月1日生效。
订阅每日案卷新闻简报，晨间获取最新法律资讯
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
但位于州首府博伊西的美国地区法官阿曼达·布雷尔斯福德在一项针对该法案合宪性的集体诉讼审理期间，发布了初步禁令，限制该法案的执行范围。
布雷尔斯福德的裁决允许跨性别者继续使用符合其性别认同的单隔间浴室，或在同一楼层没有单隔间设施的情况下使用多隔间浴室。
除此之外，州政府可以自由执行适用于多用户浴室的法律条款，以及未被纳入本次诉讼的公共更衣室和淋浴设施相关条款。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
原告方曾寻求一项针对性的临时禁令，仅禁止他们认为该法案中最严苛的部分，而他们的最终诉求是由法院作出最终裁决，彻底废除所有浴室使用限制。
该诉讼的核心主张是，该法案违反了美国宪法第十四修正案赋予原告的正当程序、平等保护和隐私权。
在长达30页的判决意见中，布雷尔斯福德在正当程序问题上支持原告方，认定原告很可能在该法案的执法条款存在宪法模糊性的主张上胜诉。
她表示，仅凭这一认定就足以推翻州政府提出的公共安全论点，无需再审查原告方提出的隐私权和平等保护诉求。
blob:https://www.reuters.com/5a10701d-89ba-4dc8-9f47-bb1558caec93
法官未被州方的安全主张说服
该新法案的支持者声称，其目的是让公共浴室更安全，防止男性伪装成跨性别者在女浴室实施性侵犯或偷窥行为。
法官认可州政府在“促进身体隐私，保护公共浴室中的女性和儿童免受可能的伤害”方面拥有合法利益，但裁定这些担忧可以通过现有刑事法律解决，“无需侵犯原告的宪法权利”。
原告方辩称，该法案非但不会让公共浴室更安全，反而会让跨性别者面临“可能的暴力、骚扰和心理伤害”。
诉讼文件称，由共和党控制的爱达荷州议会在制定该法案时“依赖了对跨性别者的错误认知和刻板印象”，“将跨性别者与性侵犯者混为一谈”。
据倡导LGBTQ权利的智库“运动推进项目”统计，爱达荷州是全美约20个已出台某种形式跨性别者浴室准入限制的州之一。
除爱达荷州外，另有犹他州、堪萨斯州和佛罗里达州三个州以监禁作为此类法案的执法威慑手段。但爱达荷州的法案适用范围更广，刑事处罚也比其他州更为严厉。
该法案规定，在政府大楼、餐厅、商店及其他向公众开放的场所，进入与自身生理性别相反的浴室、更衣室或淋浴间即构成犯罪。
根据这项新限制，首次违规将被定为轻罪，最高可判处一年监禁；五年内再次违规则构成重罪，最高可判处五年监禁。
爱达荷州此前曾通过两项法案，限制公立学校和大学校园学生使用与其出生性别对应的浴室设施，并允许学生起诉遇到的违规跨性别者以推动法案执行。
这两项法案目前均处于法律诉讼中，在审理期间仍保持效力。
史蒂夫·戈尔曼在洛杉矶报道；凯特·梅伯里编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则。
US judge limits enforcement of Idaho’s transgender bathroom access law
2026-06-17 02:13:36 UTC / Reuters
By Steve Gorman
June 17, 2026 2:13 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
- Idaho ‘bathroom bill’ considered most restrictive in US
- Law restricts public restroom use according to birth sex
- Judge backs argument that law is constitutionally vague
June 16 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Tuesday barred Idaho from fully enforcing a new state law making it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, for transgender people to use public restrooms whose designations differ from their sex assigned at birth.
The Idaho statute, the most restrictive among various laws enacted in about 20 U.S. states limiting access of transgender people to bathrooms conforming with their gender identity, was due to go into effect on July 1.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
But U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford, sitting in Boise, the state capital, granted a preliminary injunction curtailing the measure’s enforcement while a class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statute proceeds.
Brailsford’s order allows transgender individuals to continue using single-stall restrooms matching their gender identity, or to use a multi-stall restroom when a single-stall facility is not available on the same floor of a building.
Otherwise, the state is free to enforce the law as it applies to multi-user bathrooms, as well as to portions of the law covering public locker rooms and shower facilities, which were not subject to the court challenge.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
While the plaintiffs sought a narrowly tailored injunction temporarily barring only what they viewed as the most onerous parts of the statute, they are seeking a final court ruling that would throw out all restroom restrictions in their entirety.
The thrust of the lawsuit argues that the statute violates the plaintiffs’ rights to due process, equal protection and privacy under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In her 30-page opinion, Brailsford sided with the plaintiffs on the question of due process, finding them likely to prevail on their claim that law enforcement provisions of the measure are unconstitutionally vague.
That finding alone was sufficient, she said, to override the state’s public safety arguments and issue an injunction without yet considering plaintiffs’ privacy and equal protection claims.
blob:https://www.reuters.com/5a10701d-89ba-4dc8-9f47-bb1558caec93
JUDGE NOT SWAYED BY STATE’S SAFETY CLAIMS
Proponents of the new law have asserted that its aim is to make public bathrooms safer and to prevent sexual assault or voyeurism in women’s restrooms by men posing as transgender.
The judge agreed that the state has a valid interest in “promoting bodily privacy and protecting women and children in public restrooms from those who may seek to do harm,” but ruled that those concerns can be addressed by existing criminal laws “without infringing upon plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”
The plaintiffs have argued that rather than make public restrooms safer, the measure will instead expose transgender people to “likely violence, harassment and psychological harm.”
The Republican-controlled Idaho legislature “relied on inaccurate beliefs and stereotypes about transgender people” in crafting the statute, “conflating transgender people with sexual predators,” the lawsuit asserts.
Idaho is one of about 20 states with some form of bathroom access restrictions for transgender people on the books, according to a tally by the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank that advocates for LGBTQ rights.
Just three other states besides Idaho – Utah, Kansas and Florida – use the threat of incarceration to enforce such laws. But Idaho’s measure is broader in scope and carries tougher criminal penalties than the others.
The statute makes it a crime to enter a restroom, changing room or shower designated for the opposite biological sex in government buildings, restaurants, stores and other private businesses when those facilities are open to the public.
The first offense under the new restrictions would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, while a second offense within five years would be a felony, carrying a maximum five-year prison sentence.
Idaho passed two previous laws curbing access to bathrooms in public schools and on college campuses to students whose birth sex corresponds to the gender designation of the facility in question, and seeks to enforce those by allowing students to sue if they encounter a transgender person in violation.
Both those statutes are under legal challenge and remain in effect as they wend their way through the courts.
Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Kate Mayberry
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复