Connect with us

Idaho

US Supreme Court allows Idaho gender-affirming care ban for minors to go into effect

Published

on

US Supreme Court allows Idaho gender-affirming care ban for minors to go into effect


The US Supreme Court granted an emergency request for stay led by Idaho officials, allowing the state to temporarily enforce a statewide ban on gender-affirming care for certain minors. This ban is one of the first cases related to transgender health care to reach the nation’s highest court. Labrador v. Poe is the case that challenged the law enacted in Idaho last year, which prohibits treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors.

Under the new law, physicians who provide gender-affirming care to transgender children could face up to 10 years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines. While the law can now be enforced statewide, it cannot be applied against the two plaintiffs who challenged it. Often, emergency docket decisions do not include reasoning. However, this 34-page decision included concurrences by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. 

The court’s written opinion emphasized that this case poses a question about “the propriety of universal injunctive relief, a question of great significance that has needed the Court’s attention for some time.” In other words, the Ninth Circuit granted relief to the plaintiffs and additionally decided the Idaho law’s enactment was to be halted. The Supreme Court ruled this was an overstep of the lower court’s authority. The court’s three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, objected to this decision, arguing that the law should have remained entirely blocked and that it was the natural order of a case to be challenged and move through the lower courts appropriately. 

The state of Idaho and its Attorney General Raul Labrador argue that “Every day Idaho’s law remains enjoined exposes vulnerable children to risky and dangerous medical procedures and infringes Idaho’s sovereign power to enforce its democratically enacted law.” The state says that since the plaintiffs both want access to a single procedure, it is unfair that the Ninth Circuit’s injunction applies to all 20+ procedures that the Idaho law regulates as they are two minors and their parents, and the injunction covers 2 million. 

Advertisement

The plaintiffs, two transgender teenagers whose identities are protected, argue that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which protects individuals and groups from discrimination by the government. The brief for the teens cites that the new law does not ban cisgender boys who are forecasted to have a post-pubertal height of 5’4″ or shorter as they may be treated with testosterone for “short stature.” Idaho doctors are thus free to prescribe testosterone to cisgender boys, including to affirm cisgender boys’ gender identity with overdeveloped breast tissue. Similar differences are allowed for cisgender girls to receive estrogen for specific delayed puberty issues. Thus, counsel argues that the law has “nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with expressing disapproval of, and stigmatizing transgender people.”

This case is part of broader state jurisprudence across the country, with more than 20 conservative states enacting similar bans targeting care for transgender youth. This spring, appeals concerning similar laws in Tennessee and Kentucky will be up for consideration by the justices.



Source link

Idaho

Idaho Senate introduces new bill to give local municipalities authority to control rat populations

Published

on

Idaho Senate introduces new bill to give local municipalities authority to control rat populations


BOISE, Idaho — A new bill in the Idaho Senate aims to let local municipalities take action to control rat populations. This, after a previous bill to combat rat infestations across Idaho, died in the House.

Rats have been spreading throughout the Treasure Valley in recent years, but previous attempts at legislation to deal with the problem have failed.

WATCH: Senior Reporter Roland Beres provides an update on the new rat bill

New bill would allow local governments to combat rats

Advertisement

Residents in Eagle and Boise have been tracking an alarming rise in rat populations recently.

Rep. John Gannon (D – District 17) introduced new legislation today that would essentially permit local governments to act in order to control rat populations if they want to, without creating a mandate.

Gannon said some cities complained that they did not have the authority to do the job themselves.

The bill was introduced with a dose of humor.

Advertisement

“I’m going to support this. It’s very late in the session, but I think this might just squeak through,” said Sen. Ben Adams (R – District 12). “Well. Unless it encounters a trap along the way.”

ALSO READ | ‘I’ve never seen something that big’: Boise neighbors finding rats in their backyards

This story was initially reported by a journalist and has been, in part, converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.

Send tips to neighborhood reporter Riley Shoemaker

Have a story idea from Downtown Boise, the North End or Garden City ? Share it with Riley below —

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Idaho

Penny Lee Brown Obituary March 25, 2026 – Eckersell Funeral Home

Published

on

Penny Lee Brown Obituary March 25, 2026 – Eckersell Funeral Home


Penny Lee Brown, age 72, of Idaho Falls, formerly of Ririe, passed away Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls.

Penny was born October 18, 1953, in Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada, a daughter to William and Luella Cooper Artemenko. She attended schools in Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada. She earned her Certified Nursing Assistant Certificate from Eastern Idaho Technical College.

She married Donal A. Brown in Fort St. John, British Columbia. Their marriage was later solemnized in the Idaho Falls Temple. She was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She enjoyed attending her children’s sporting events, puzzles, collecting cat memorabilia, crafting, baking, and caring for others.

Advertisement

She is survived by her husband Donal A. Brown, children: Jared Brown (Krystal) of Boise, Marcus Brown (Misty) of Weippe, Idaho, Scott Brown of Idaho Falls, Douglas Brown of Idaho Falls, Jamie Brown of Williston, North Dakota, Steven Brown (Claire) of Idaho Falls. A brother Kenneth Artemenko (Nancy) of White Horse, YK, four grandchildren and one great grandchild.

She was preceded in death by her Father William Artemenko and her mother Luela Cooper and a brother Levern Artemenko.

Funeral services will be held Monday March 30, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Perry Ward Chapel 285 2nd West, Ririe, Idaho. The family will visit with friends on Monday from 9:30 to 10:45 a.m. at the church. Interment will be in the Ririe-Shelton Cemetery.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Idaho

Idaho bill aims to criminalize transgender bathroom use in private businesses

Published

on

Idaho bill aims to criminalize transgender bathroom use in private businesses


BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would make it a crime for transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity — even inside privately owned businesses.

At least 19 states, including Idaho, already have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms and changing rooms that align with their gender in schools and, in some cases, other public places. The LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Movement Advancement Project’s tracking of the laws shows that three other states — Florida, Kansas and Utah — have made it a criminal offense in some circumstances to violate the bathroom laws.

READ MORE: Ohio Gov. DeWine signs bill restricting transgender students’ use of bathrooms

But none of the others apply as broadly to private businesses as the Idaho bill, which covers any “place of public accommodation,” meaning any business or facility that serves the public. The state’s Republican supermajority Senate is expected to vote on the bill this week, deciding whether to send it to Gov. Brad Little’s desk.

Advertisement

Felony bathroom use?

If the law is passed, anyone who enters a public facility like a bathroom or locker room designated for the opposite sex could be sentenced to a year in jail for a misdemeanor first offense, or up to five years in prison for a felony second offense. That’s a longer sentence than Idaho imposes for a first drunken driving conviction or for displaying offensive sexual material in public.

Protecting those spaces is a “matter of safety” and “decency,” said Republican Sen. Ben Toews told a Senate committee last week.

“Private spaces such as restrooms, changing areas and showers are sex-separated for a reason,” Toews said. “Individuals in these vulnerable settings have a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.”

The bill does carve out several exceptions. Athletic coaches, people responding to emergencies, people supervising inmates, custodians, and people helping children who need bathroom assistance get a pass. So does someone who is “in dire need” of a bathroom, if the bathroom they use is the only one that is reasonably available at the time.

Law enforcement groups say it’s a bad bill

Law enforcement groups including the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association oppose the bill, which they say would place officers in impossible positions, tasking them with visually determining someone’s biological sex or their level of “dire need.” The Idaho Sheriff’s Association asked lawmakers to require that people first ask any suspected violator to leave the bathroom before calling authorities, but lawmakers refused.

Advertisement

Heron Greenesmith, deputy policy director at Transgender Law Center, said the “dire need” exception could be especially hard to assert — and that the idea that a person can use a public restroom only in an emergency is dehumanizing.

“How does one prove that one was going to poop on the floor?” they asked.

Opponents fear vigilantism

John Bueno, a transgender student at the University of Idaho and a member of the student group Queer Inclusion Society, said the school has lots of single-use restrooms, which helps mitigate the logistical impacts of the bill. But the legislation would likely lead to more unwanted “profiling” of people, whether they are transgender or not, she said.

“It’s this cultural attitude of getting other Americans to habitually be narcing on one other and doing this sort of ‘transvestigating’ — that is what these kinds of bills promote,” Bueno said.

It all comes down to an effort to disenfranchise transgender people, Bueno said.

Advertisement

“This will increasingly deter queer individuals from Idaho universities and the state as a whole,” she said. “Which to be fair, is probably the primary purpose.”

Bill could impact employment opportunities

Nikson Matthews, a transgender man with a beard, told a panel of lawmakers last week that the bill would force him into the women’s restroom, where his masculine appearance puts him at risk of aggression from people who think he’s intruding.

“It creates a crime — but that is not based on conduct or harm,” Matthews said. “It is based on presence, and to justify that you have to accept that someone’s presence alone is traumatizing and harmful enough to criminalize.”

It could also make it difficult for transgender people to work, said Boise resident Laura Volgert.

“People might be able to hold it for an hour if they’re at a restaurant for lunch or at a grocery store,” she told lawmakers during a committee hearing. “They can’t be expected to hold it for a full eight-hour shift.”

Advertisement

That’s the point of these types of laws, said Greenesmith, to “make it untenable to go to the movies, to go to the doctor, to go to the bank.”

Proponents say that isn’t the case.

Proponents say safety and privacy is key

Suzanne Tabert, a Sandpoint resident, said the bill is about “maintaining, clear, enforceable boundaries” so that women and children can feel safe.

“If we lose the ability to protect based on biological sex, we lose our most effective tool for preventing harassment, voyeurism and other sex crimes before they occur,” she said.

She later continued, “This legislation is not about how an individual identifies, nor does it seek to target or malign the transgender community. Rather it upholds a universal standard of privacy.”

Advertisement

Bathrooms are not the only place where lawmakers have been placing restrictions on transgender people in the name of protecting women and girls. At least 25 states bar transgender women and girls from some women’s and girl’s sports competitions. And at least 27 states have laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors.

Expanding all of these policies are priorities for President Donald Trump, too.

The only widely reported arrest of someone on charges of violating transgender bathroom restrictions was part of a protest in Florida last year.

Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.

A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

Advertisement

Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.




Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending