Labrador Letter: Federal Court Upholds Idaho’s Medical Freedom Act

Dear Friends,

Parents make important decisions about their children’s health and well-being every day. Idaho’s Medical Freedom Act protects their ability to make those decisions without automatically losing access to childcare, schools, jobs, or other services. A recent federal court ruling upheld that principle in a challenge brought by a Boise-area daycare and three parents who wanted the daycare to be able to require vaccinations as a condition of attendance.

The Legislature passed the Medical Freedom Act in 2025. It prohibits businesses, schools, and government entities from denying services, employment, or access to public buildings because of a private medical decision a person made for themselves or their child. During debate, some lawmakers raised concerns that the law could prevent schools from sending sick children home. Governor Little vetoed an earlier version over that concern before signing a revised bill in April 2025.

At the heart of the law is a principle the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized: parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children. Parents are the first line of defense for their children’s health, and I believe those medical decisions belong to the mothers and fathers raising them. The Medical Freedom Act protects that authority by ensuring a family’s medical choices cannot, by themselves, become a barrier to childcare, education, or employment.

The parents who challenged the law argued that their own parental rights include the right to choose a daycare that requires vaccination. I respect their concerns. However, as we argued in the case, and U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford agreed in Le Soleil Child Care v. Labrador, the law does not prevent parents from vaccinating their children, consulting medical professionals, or choosing a daycare that aligns with their preferences. It limits what a daycare can require of families as a condition of attendance.

The court agreed with us that recognizing the right the plaintiffs asserted would force the Legislature to favor one group’s views on vaccination over another’s when setting rules for daycares. Protecting one family’s choices should not mean allowing another family’s private medical decisions to dictate whether they can access childcare.

The daycare also argued that the law was too vague and could prohibit ordinary practices like handwashing or prevent daycares from excluding sick and contagious children. The court rejected those arguments, agreeing with our office that the word “medical” limits the law to actions that are medical in nature. Basic hygiene does not become a medical action simply because it can help prevent disease. And the law does not prevent a daycare from excluding a child who has a contagious illness—a concern raised during the legislative debate.

The law also does not restrict what a daycare can say about public health or vaccination. The court noted that Le Soleil remains free to express its views. The law limits what the daycare can require of families, not what it can say.

For Idaho families, the ruling preserves the protections the Legislature intended. The court found that the law serves legitimate state interests, including reducing barriers to childcare, protecting individual autonomy, and preventing discrimination based on medical decisions.

I recognize that some Idahoans disagree with this policy, and I do not question the sincerity of their concerns. The daycare’s attorney has indicated that they are considering an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Legislature is the proper place to revisit the policy and weigh competing concerns. As Judge Brailsford noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned courts against expanding constitutional rights in ways that take over “authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.”

Idaho’s elected representatives debated these concerns and made their decision. My office will continue to defend the law they enacted.

Best regards,

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.