Trans Bathroom Ban Bills Now Expanding To Private Businesses

Last month, Kansas passed a bathroom bounty bill that could target private businesses. Now, Idaho will hear a similar bill that is more explicit that private businesses are also impacted.

Idaho Capitol // Wikimedia Commons

In the modern anti-transgender panic, several states have passed laws banning transgender people from restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Early bills focused primarily on K-12 schools, but the scope quickly expanded. Some states extended bans to even private colleges and universities. Others adopted sweeping “government building” prohibitions, barring transgender people from restrooms in all publicly owned facilities—a far broader category than it sounds, encompassing airports, rest stops, and other everyday spaces. A few states went further still, adding punitive enforcement mechanisms; Florida, for example, attached criminal penalties to its ban. Yet one category remained largely untouched: private business bathrooms. That exception is now collapsing. Multiple states are advancing a new generation of bathroom bills that would extend these bans into private businesses for the first time.

The first clear sign that private business bathrooms could be targeted came this year in Kansas. At the end of January, the state passed SB 244 and HB2426 through a rushed “gut-and-go” process designed to bypass portions of public hearings. The legislation drew attention for several reasons, including provisions revoking the driver’s licenses of transgender people and forcing them to obtain new ones reflecting their assigned sex at birth. But another provision—first identified by Erin In The Morning and later confirmed by legal and advocacy organizations in Kansas and nationally—was even more alarming. The bill appeared to create a mechanism allowing so-called bathroom bounty hunters to sue transgender people encountered in any restroom, whether in a government-owned building or a private business. With little warning, Kansas had advanced what looked to be the first measure directly threatening transgender people’s access to private business bathrooms.

Although the bill was vetoed, Republicans hold enough seats in the Kansas Legislature to potentially override that veto. If they do, the measure would take effect quickly. Transgender Kansans would not only be forced to scramble for updated identification documents reflecting their assigned sex at birth, but would also have to navigate daily life by mapping trips around the availability of gender-neutral bathrooms. Any transgender person who simply continues using the restroom they have always used could face lawsuits seeking substantial damages from individuals eager to weaponize the law for harassment—or profit.

Now, it appears these kinds of bills are spreading. In Idaho, a separate measure—House Bill 607—is scheduled to be heard in committee today and similarly targets transgender people’s access to private business bathrooms. The bill would allow lawsuits against any “place of public accommodation” that permits transgender people to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity. While it does not include the criminal penalties or explicit bounty-style provisions seen elsewhere, its practical effect would be sweeping: private businesses across the state could face legal risk simply for allowing transgender people to use the restroom. The scope of bathroom bans is no longer confined to schools or government buildings. It is expanding.

Erin In The Morning has identified additional bills in state legislatures across the country. In Indiana, HB 1198 would apply to any public restroom—whether privately owned or government-run—and would establish criminal penalties for anyone who “knowingly or intentionally enters a restroom that is designated to be used” by someone of a different assigned sex at birth. In Missouri, HB 2314 would weaponize the state’s Human Rights Act against private businesses that allow transgender people to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity, effectively turning a civil rights law into a tool for restricting transgender rights. And in Idaho, yet another proposal would not only bar private businesses from permitting transgender people to use certain restrooms but would also impose criminal penalties on violators.

It is worth noting that, so far, anti-transgender bathroom bans have had uneven real-world enforcement. In K-12 schools—where administrators wield significant authority—they have been highly effective at policing transgender students. In colleges and public buildings, however, enforcement has been far more sporadic, with only a handful of documented expulsions from restrooms in states like Texas and Florida. But this next wave of legislation could fundamentally alter that balance. By targeting private businesses and imposing civil or criminal liability directly on transgender individuals, these bills move enforcement out of institutional hands and into the realm of lawsuits and vigilantism. And history offers a warning: once a new anti-trans legal strategy gains traction in one state, it rarely stays there.