South Dakota enacts law restricting transgender bathroom access in schools and state buildings

South Dakota has enacted a new law that limits the ability of transgender individuals to use public restrooms and changing facilities that align with their gender identity in schools and state-owned buildings. Republican Governor Larry Rhoden signed House Bill 1259 into law on Friday, making South Dakota the latest in a growing list of states to pass legislation restricting transgender bathroom access. The law is set to take effect on July 1, placing legal obligations on public schools and state institutions to ensure that transgender individuals do not use gender-segregated communal facilities that do not correspond with their sex assigned at birth.

The legislation also includes provisions that allow individuals who encounter transgender people using facilities that do not align with their sex assigned at birth to pursue legal action. Under the law, those individuals can seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the school or institution if officials fail to take “reasonable steps” to enforce the restrictions.

Why Did South Dakota Pass This Law?

Governor Rhoden justified the new restrictions as a measure to uphold what he described as “common-sense values” in South Dakota. In a statement following the bill’s signing, he asserted that the law was intended to protect citizens from what he called the “woke agenda” that has influenced policies in other states. His administration framed the legislation as a response to growing national debates over transgender rights and gender identity policies in schools.

The passage of the bill was overwhelmingly supported by South Dakota’s conservative-majority legislature, which has historically been at the forefront of efforts to regulate transgender rights. However, this marks the first time South Dakota has enacted a statewide law specifically restricting bathroom access for transgender individuals.

A similar measure had previously been introduced and approved by both chambers of the state legislature in 2016, but it was ultimately vetoed by then-Governor Dennis Daugaard. This time, with a political landscape that has shifted further to the right, the bill received strong support and faced little resistance in the statehouse.

How Are Advocacy Groups Responding?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of South Dakota has been vocal in its opposition to the law. Samantha Chapman, an advocacy manager at the organization, described the passage of the bill as “painful, disheartening, and heartbreaking.” She indicated that the ACLU is currently exploring legal options to challenge the law, but no formal lawsuit has been announced yet.

Opponents of the legislation argue that it represents a direct attack on the rights and dignity of transgender individuals, reinforcing discrimination in public spaces. Advocacy groups warn that laws of this nature contribute to an increase in mental health challenges and stigmatization faced by transgender youth. Research from LGBTQ+ organizations has consistently shown that restricting access to gender-affirming spaces correlates with higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation among transgender individuals.

How Does South Dakota’s Law Compare to Similar Measures in Other States?

South Dakota is now at least the 13th state to implement restrictions on transgender bathroom access in public schools and, in some cases, other government facilities. The state’s decision follows a broader trend across Republican-led legislatures pushing for laws aimed at regulating transgender participation in schools, sports, and other public spaces.

Tennessee and Montana are among the latest states to consider similar bills, with a measure in Tennessee reaching the governor’s desk on Thursday and a comparable bill awaiting action in Montana. The rise in such legislation has sparked multiple legal challenges, with courts delivering mixed rulings on their constitutionality.

At the national level, legal battles over transgender rights continue to shape policy implementation. While some courts have struck down school district-level bathroom bans, others have upheld state-imposed restrictions while cases proceed through the appeals process. This week, a federal appeals panel ruled unanimously (3-0) in favor of allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on transgender bathroom access while legal proceedings are ongoing.

What Is the Federal Government’s Position on Transgender Rights?

The federal government’s stance on transgender rights has shifted significantly over recent years, reflecting changes in presidential administrations. Under President Joe Biden, the federal government sought to expand protections for transgender individuals by applying anti-discrimination laws to gender identity in schools and other public institutions. However, legal challenges stalled those efforts, with courts blocking the administration’s attempt to enforce protections under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education.

Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has reversed several Biden-era policies on transgender rights, issuing executive orders that critics argue significantly curtail legal protections for transgender individuals. Trump’s administration previously sought to define gender based strictly on biological sex, a position that influenced state-level legislative efforts, including South Dakota’s latest law.

What Happens Next?

With the law set to take effect in July, advocacy groups are likely to escalate legal challenges, aiming to block its implementation before it can be enforced. The legal landscape surrounding transgender rights remains complex, with court rulings varying across jurisdictions. While some states have seen their bans overturned, others have been able to enforce restrictions amid ongoing legal battles.

The passage of House Bill 1259 in South Dakota underscores the intensifying political and legal fights over transgender rights in the United States. As additional states consider similar measures, the issue is expected to remain a highly contentious and closely watched topic in the months ahead.