Idaho's 2026 Legislative Session

HB 822A: The Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act

IDAHO CODE § 32-1016

HB 822a, now codified at Idaho Code § 32-1016, creates the "Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act." The law bars healthcare providers and educational institutions (defined broadly as "covered entities") from facilitating a minor’s sex transition or social transition without first notifying parents and obtaining their informed consent.

Two provisions stand out for providers:

• No aiding or abetting sex transition procedures. Covered entities may not "aid or abet a child’s efforts to obtain sex transition procedures," building on Idaho’s existing criminal statute addressing similar conduct.
• Social transition consent requirement. Section 32-1016(7) separately bars covered entities from aiding a child’s social transition without written parental consent.

Social transitioning is defined to include identifying as a gender different from the individual’s sex and can include social, legal, or physical changes such as using a new name, nickname, or pronouns. It also includes or may involve dressing in a manner that does not correspond with the individual’s sex.

Violations carry real exposure for covered entities and individual providers. Parents may bring a private right of action for damages including compensatory and attorney fees and may seek declaratory and injunctive judicial relief. Additionally, the legislation vested enforcement authority with the Attorney General who may seek civil penalties up to $100,000 and may file complaints with the applicable professional licensure board. This is the third attempt at this kind of legislation in Idaho, following HB 739 and HB 572 in prior sessions.

The law has already drawn criticism for its drafting. A Rule 27 House Minority Report filed March 10, 2026 argued the statute’s "aid or abet" language is unconstitutionally vague, that its penalty structure may violate the Excessive Fines Clause under Timbs v. Indiana, and that the law lacks any safety exception for children facing abuse at home. Because "aiding and abetting" isn’t defined in the statute, providers are left guessing whether routine conduct such as offering supportive counseling or making a referral could trigger liability.

Practical takeaway:

Idaho medical, behavioral health, and mental health providers, along with schools and childcare providers, should review consent and referral protocols now that the law is in effect, given the breadth of "covered entity" and the ambiguity around what counts as facilitation. Covered Entities may need to adjust policies and procedures to ensure staff are aware of the recent changes and how to comply with the same.

HB 928: The Merit-Based Health Care Act

HB 928, signed April 2, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026 under an emergency clause, creates a new Chapter 26 in Title 56 of Idaho Code: the "Merit-Based Health Care Act.”

The law applies to any "health care provider" that voluntarily participates in Idaho Medicaid or receives Medicaid reimbursement through a state-contracted managed care network, and prohibits:

• Discriminatory hiring or "prohibited DEI conduct" in employment, promotion, compensation, discipline, termination, or contracting decisions.
• Race- or sex-based preferences, quotas, or equity benchmarks.
• Mandatory implicit-bias or systemic-bias training that assigns outcomes based on protected characteristics rather than individual merit.
• Required diversity statements, pledges, or attestations as a condition of employment or contracting.
• Use of state funds, including Medicaid reimbursements, for public-facing communications (marketing, websites, mission statements, signage, social media) that promote prohibited DEI conduct.

The statute defines "DEI" expansively, incorporating language about critical race theory, "anti-racism," and race/sex stereotyping. It builds in some guardrails: it doesn’t override Title VI compliance, allows demographic data collection for clinical and public health purposes, and preserves patient-specific discussions of biological or genetic risk factors. Violations are enforced by the Attorney General with tiered civil penalties: up to $100,000 per violation for larger providers (50 or more employees) and up to $50,000 for smaller providers (less than 50 employee).  The law creates a limited private right of action for retaliation against employees who refuse to participate in prohibited DEI conduct.

Practical takeaway:

Any provider or facility receiving Idaho Medicaid dollars, directly or through a managed care contract, should audit hiring policies, mandatory training curricula, and public-facing communications for DEI-related content since compliance is now a material condition of Medicaid provider agreements.

The Bigger Picture

HB 822a and HB 928 both reflect the same procedural posture: both carry emergency clauses, both took effect July 1, 2026, and both create new civil liability regimes enforced by the Attorney General with penalties reaching $100,000. While they touch upon similar subject matter, they target different conduct. HB 822a governs how providers handle parental consent for pediatric gender-related care, while HB 928 governs how Medicaid-participating providers structure hiring, training, and public communications. Providers touched by either law should treat July 1 as the operative compliance deadline, since both statutes were already in effect by the time this post was published.

Where these two laws intersect is when and how providers navigate the grey areas. Consider a covered entity that wants to foster an inclusive environment for staff and clients and, to satisfy HB 822a's consent requirements, builds a policy allowing parents to give advance, blanket written consent to social-transition support as part of intake thereby avoiding a case-by-case notification process each time a need arises. That same policy, viewed through HB 928, could be read differently: if the underlying framework, staff training, or public-facing description of the program reflects an inclusive orientation toward LGBTQ+ patients, it may fall within HB 928's broad definition of "prohibited DEI conduct" or the communications restrictions tied to Medicaid funding, even though the consent mechanics themselves fully satisfy HB 822a.

In other words, a policy built to comply with one statute's consent framework could expose a Medicaid-participating provider to a separate enforcement theory under the other. Neither bill's text addresses this overlap directly, and how the Attorney General or courts would resolve a conflict between them remains an open question. Providers designing consent-based accommodation policies that also touch on inclusion or DEI-adjacent language should treat this intersection as unsettled and involve counsel before finalizing that language.

This post is intended as a general summary of enacted legislation and does not constitute legal advice. Navigating these new requirements can be complex.

If you'd like to talk through how HB 822a or HB 928 affects your practice, CHC Legal's attorneys are happy to help. Contact@chc-legal.com