Idaho Attorney General Labrador failed to keep his ‘good laws’ pledge | Opinion

When Raúl Labrador announced his campaign for attorney general in November 2021, he pledged to work with legislators to “write good laws that will stand up against the gamesmanship of activist judges.”

Although he has repeated that pledge numerous times since, he has failed to deliver. The latest failure is Idaho’s bathroom bill, which was partially blocked by a federal judge on June 16.

Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 752 into law this spring. The provision blocked by the judge made it a criminal offense for a person to enter a public restroom not matching their biological sex at birth. The law exempts prosecution of someone “in dire need of urinating or defecating” if the restroom is the only facility “reasonably available.”

This exemption is as wide as a barn door. One person’s dire need may be completely different from that of someone else. And how do you prove the direness? And what on earth does “reasonably available” mean?

The judge pointed out that there was no definition of these critical provisions, quoting concerns raised by the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association when the bill was before the Legislature. Had Labrador honored his pledge to write good laws, he would have given this cautionary input when HB 752 was being drafted. He apparently could not be bothered to support the well-founded concerns of law enforcement at that critical time.

Labrador groused that the judge made “a results-driven decision that misapplies the law.” The law enforcement community certainly disagreed. Furthermore, a lawyer who improperly blames the judge for a well-deserved defeat is stretching ethical boundaries and does not belong in a position of public trust.

This, of course, was just another chapter in the Labrador saga. During his first legislative session in 2023, Labrador wrote his infamous abortion trafficking letter to Rep. Brent Crane. He claimed that Idaho law prohibits Idaho medical providers from “referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services.” What he should have told Crane is that criminalizing such activity would violate the Constitution.

What’s interesting is that the letter was supposed to have been a secret communication to Crane. When it became public, it created a furor. First, because Labrador has consistently refused to give written opinions to legislators, even though he is required by the law to do so. Second, because the opinion was not issued publicly from the outset, as it should have been. Third, because he was dead wrong on the law.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit to prohibit enforcement of the trafficking provision. Apparently recognizing that he was wrong on the law, Labrador advised the court that he was withdrawing his letter. When the case was being argued in federal court, Labrador’s deputy was asked by the judge whether the attorney general disavowed the letter. It appeared likely that the matter would have been concluded at that time if there was a disavowal. Nevertheless, Labrador refused to disavow.

In his ruling, the judge wrote that “the attorney general has strained at every juncture possible to distance himself from his previous statement without committing to a new interpretation.”

The case continued to be litigated for two years, until Labrador threw in the towel in July 2025 and agreed to a consent decree blocking enforcement of the trafficking provision. The state was required to pay Planned Parenthood $400,000 in legal fees. That was the cost of Labrador’s refusal to disavow his secret opinion. It could all have been avoided if Labrador had honored his pledge to write good laws.

Tom Arkoosh is a former prosecuting attorney of Gem County, a longtime Idaho legal practitioner and former candidate for attorney general of Idaho.