BOISE — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Boise daycare and three parents challenging Idaho’s law that prevents daycares, businesses, schools and government entities from requiring vaccinations or other medical treatments.
Judge sides with state interpretation
Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford granted the request from Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador to dismiss the suit brought by Le Soleil Child Care LLC and three families who said the statute was too vague and could bar routine public health protections.
In her written ruling, Brailsford said she agreed with the attorney general’s reading of the statute’s definition of “medical interventions,” finding the term refers to health practices that are expressly medical in nature.
“The (Idaho Medical Freedom Act) plainly and unambiguously sets out a standard of prohibited conduct that gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,” Brailsford wrote.
Scope of the Idaho Medical Freedom Act
The law at issue — the Idaho Medical Freedom Act — bars entities from making vaccines or specified medical actions a condition of participation. The statute defines prohibited “medical interventions” to include “a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug injection, medication, or medical action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter the health or biological function of a person.”
The plaintiffs had argued that the language could be read to prohibit basic mitigation measures, such as requiring children to stay home when ill or enforcing good hygiene practices. The daycare and parents sought to block enforcement of the law, saying it would strip child-care providers of routine tools to protect children and staff.
Attorney general praises ruling; plaintiffs consider appeal
In a statement following the decision, Attorney General Labrador said the ruling affirmed parental authority over medical decisions for their children.
“Parents make medical decisions for their children. A daycare does not,” Labrador said. “The Legislature protected that choice in the Medical Freedom Act, and the court upheld it. Daycares can tell parents what they believe about vaccines.”
The source reporting the lawsuit noted that the daycare and the parents, through their attorney, are considering an appeal of the dismissal.
- Plaintiffs: Le Soleil Child Care LLC and three parents of children in the daycare
- Defendant/Respondent: State of Idaho, represented by Attorney General Raúl Labrador
- Judge: Chief U.S. District Judge Amanda K. Brailsford
| Issue | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Constitutional vagueness of the law | Judge Brailsford found the law clear and dismissed the challenge |
| Definition of "medical interventions" | Interpreted to mean medical procedures and treatments, not routine nonmedical actions |
| Next steps | Plaintiffs and daycare indicated they may appeal |
Implications for child-care providers and families
For daycares and other service providers, the decision effectively preserves the state prohibition against requiring vaccinations or other defined medical procedures as a condition of enrollment or employment. Providers remain free to communicate their own views on vaccination but cannot enforce compliance as a prerequisite for participation.
Families and child-care operators who supported the lawsuit warned that restricting providers’ ability to require certain health measures could complicate efforts to control outbreaks of contagious illnesses. The court, however, found the statute’s language provides adequate notice of what is prohibited.
Where this leaves state policy
The ruling reinforces a legislative approach that centers parental choice in medical decisions for children and limits institutional mandates. It also sets up a possible appellate review that could clarify how far that protection extends in practice, especially in situations where public health concerns intersect with child-care operations.
For now, daycares in Idaho must follow the law as written; the decision means they cannot require vaccinations or specified medical procedures, although they may continue to advise parents and promote public-health recommendations.
As this case moves potentially toward appeal, parents, providers and public-health officials will be watching legal developments closely to see how the balance between individual choice and communal health protections is resolved in Idaho courts.
