A federal appeals court has ruled that Idaho’s definition of civil law is “not simply a generic term that has been applied to virtually every situation” and that its constitution is not limited to the “right to life.”
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected a challenge by a local law firm that argued that the state’s definition was unconstitutional because it lacked “sufficient factual support.”
“Idaho’s constitutional definition of ‘civil law’ includes many aspects of the law that are not subject to federal or state scrutiny, including the right to life,” the judges wrote in the opinion.
The judges ruled that the Idaho Constitution does not define “civil law” as “the laws of the United States” but instead as “laws of the states and territories of the U.P.”
“The word ‘civil’ means the collective or collective expression of agreement between people and is the collective name of the laws of a country,” the decision reads.
The decision by the appeals court came after a federal judge blocked the state from enforcing the ban on transgender people using public restrooms and locker rooms that corresponded with their gender identity.
The ruling was a blow to the Trump administration and a rebuke to the Supreme Court’s June decision in Obergefell v.
Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.