Jan 27, 2026
Sen. Rita Sanders, Chairperson
Sen. Bob Andersen, Vice Chairperson
Sen. John Cavanaugh
Sen. Dunixi Guereca
Sen. Megan Hunt
Sen. Dan Lonowski
Sen. Fred Meyer
Sen. Dave Wordekemper
Chair Sanders and members of the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee:
The Lincoln Public Schools oppose LB 730 as we think there are some obvious problematic aspects related to enforceability. The other aspect that seems particularly troublesome on a read-through would be with respect to individuals’ right to privacy. Below is some additional information to provide clarity on our opposition:
- As currently drafted, LB 730 would create a significant change for activities across the state. LB 730 prohibits any biological male from entering a girls’ restroom, and vice versa. However, for wrestling/football/volleyball/basketball/etc teams that travel, those away teams would be prevented from using the opposite-sex locker room at the away school. Presumably, schools would need to convert a classroom (or other large space) for the away teams, which could raise other concerns about privacy, access to showers, access to restrooms, and so forth. Of course, those away teams would not be able to use the opposite-sex restroom (in the opposite-sex locker room), either.
- The practical implementation of this law could be challenging, if not impossible. The bill requires schools to prevent someone from entering a restroom of the opposite sex, but a school has no legal basis to require anyone to prove their birth sex. Without any ability to verify someone’s birth sex, schools would either need to (1) prevent restroom access on some arbitrary and possibly discriminatory basis (which could subject the school to a lawsuit); or (2) risk violating the state law by not demanding proof of birth sex.
- There is no enforcement provision for a school who (knowingly or unknowingly) allows someone to enter a prohibited restroom. (Do you ban someone from coming to school if they use the wrong restroom? Do you call law enforcement? Do you owe them some form of due process before taking some action against them?) Presumably, someone (like the Attorney General) could file for an injunction against a school to compel them to comply with the law, but (as noted above) it remains unclear how a school can be expected to perfectly comply with the law and not violate a visitor’s rights. In the end, the lack of any enforcement provisions may be a “gotcha” for schools. This is especially true in a larger district like LPS who may have thousands of visitors each month who are strangers to district staff.
- There are added, mandatory costs tied into the bill. LPS would presumably need to purchase and install new signage on every restroom and locker room that reflects the bill’s new requirements. The “training” requirement would also need to be addressed somehow in a way that ensures compliance with the law, while not violating other non-discrimination laws. I am not sure how that would look.
- Finally, it looks like almost every state that has enacted similar legislation has faced lawsuits challenging this type of law. LB 730 does not include any indemnification language to defend or protect a school who is sued by someone wanting to access their preferred restroom. This results in an unfunded mandate that a school (like LPS) would need to litigate on behalf of the State and, potentially, be on the hook for damages and/or attorneys’ fees if a court strikes down the law.
Submitted opposition written testimony representing the Lincoln Public Schools.
Korby Gilbertson
625 South 14th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
