photo by: Sylas May/Journal-World

A men's restroom in the lobby of Lawrence City Hall, 6 E Sixth St., on Thursday, March 5, 2026.

What do cities, counties and educational institutions need to do to avoid fines of up to $125,000 a day under Kansas’ new anti-transgender bathroom law?

The answer at the local level seems to be: We’re still trying to figure that out.

The law, SB 244, took effect in February after the Republican-controlled Legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto to pass it. Its provisions require public restrooms and similar spaces to be set aside for male or female users based on the person’s sex assigned at birth, and impose penalties on both individuals and governments accused of violating the law.

But just as important as what the law says is what it doesn’t say. Bruce Chladny, executive director of the Kansas Association of Counties, said county governments around the state have questions about the specifics the law doesn’t get into — things they would have to know in order to comply with it.

“Many of the questions we are receiving relate to practical issues such as how a complaint would be reported, who is responsible for monitoring compliance, and what steps a county would need to take if the attorney general determines a violation has occurred,” Chladny told the Journal-World.

For now, Chladny said, government entities should take the time to “review their policies and inspect their facilities,” and the City of Lawrence and the University of Kansas are doing just that. Both told the Journal-World over the past week that they were in the middle of a review process to try to determine how the law would affect them.

They might have more time to figure it out if a court challenge to SB 244 succeeds. On Friday, attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and the state of Kansas will be arguing in Douglas County District Court over whether a judge should temporarily block enforcement of the law.

Here’s a closer look at SB 244’s provisions and what local governments are willing to say about it so far.

What’s in the law?

SB 244 has multiple components that target transgender Kansans, including a provision that invalidates driver’s licenses and birth certificates of people who have changed their gender markers. The “bathroom bill” component of SB 244, in short, requires public buildings to designate “multiple-occupancy private spaces” as for either male or female users, based on the person’s sex as assigned at birth, and creates financial penalties for noncompliance.

Almost all of those parts — what counts as a “multiple-occupancy private space,” what to do if a violation is reported, what it means to “comply” or come back into compliance — are things local governments are asking about right now.

“Most of the questions we’ve received so far have focused on how the law applies to everyday operations in county facilities and what steps a county would take if a potential violation were identified,” Chladny said.

The law defines a “multiple-occupancy private space” as a facility that’s designed to be used by multiple people at one time where “an individual may be in a state of undress in the presence of another individual.” That’s true even if the facility provides “curtains or partial walls” for privacy in that facility.

It’s not just restrooms that are affected. Locker rooms, changing rooms and shower rooms are also examples of these spaces listed in the law, and it says that other such spaces may exist.

The penalties, meanwhile, can apply to both governments and individual users of these spaces. And, as the law is written, it seems any user of a facility could take action against an individual or government if they suspect a violation.

For government entities, the law allows people to file complaints against them with the attorney general’s office. If the AG’s office decides to pursue legal action, it will notify the government entity of the violation and give it 15 days after receiving the notice to “cure” the violation. If that doesn’t happen, the AG’s office can bring an action to assess “a civil penalty of $25,000 for the first violation and $125,000 for each subsequent violation.” Each day of a “continuing violation” would count as a separate violation.

This is where it gets confusing for governments. Chladny said county governments have been “asking about how the ‘cure’ provision works, since the statute references correcting a violation but does not provide detailed guidance on what that process looks like.”

“That is one of the areas counties have been asking about as they review the law and consider how it applies to their facilities and policies,” Chladny said. “For now, the association will continue working with counties and monitoring the issue for additional guidance as it becomes available.”

For individuals who use a facility that the law says they’re not allowed to use, there could be civil or criminal penalties involved. Individuals who violate the law repeatedly may face a civil penalty of $1,000 the second time and may be convicted of a misdemeanor for any future violations. And, if another user feels “aggrieved by the invasion of such individual’s personal privacy,” the law allows the “aggrieved” party to sue the other user for “actual damages or liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.”

Here in Lawrence, the Lawrence Police Department said via email that it had “no intention of developing proactive enforcement campaigns” related to SB 244. But it also said that it would be required, like “all police agencies in Kansas,” to “respond to citizen calls within the law.”

Reviews in progress

Last week, the Journal-World asked the City of Lawrence, the University of Kansas and the Lawrence school district about their preparations. Among other things, the Journal-World asked whether they anticipated having to create new systems to handle complaints; what financial impact they expected the law would have; and what the impact on facilities other than restrooms, such as locker rooms or dormitories, might be.

At this stage, they gave few concrete answers to those questions.

The school district, after more than a week, had not responded to the Journal-World’s inquiry at all. The city and KU did provide brief statements, but both said they were still working to figure out exactly how the law would affect them.

KU spokeswoman Erinn Barcomb-Peterson said the university was “currently reviewing the legislation to ensure full understanding of its scope and implications.” She also said KU likely wouldn’t need to change its policies to comply with the law: “Existing KU policies largely align with current law, and no immediate changes are anticipated.”

The City of Lawrence, meanwhile, provided a statement that summarized the law’s complaint provisions and said that the city was in the middle of its review.

“The City of Lawrence, along with every public agency in Kansas will be subject to; and will need to review facilities and procedures to comply with this law,” the city’s statement read. “That is the process that we are in now.”

In addition, the Journal-World reached out to the League of Kansas Municipalities and the Kansas Association of School Boards for more information about the questions their members are asking. The League of Kansas Municipalities had not responded to the Journal-World’s inquiry as of Thursday afternoon, and Kansas Association of School Boards spokeswoman Kristin Magette said that she was not able to speak to the Journal-World because “KASB guidance to our members is subject to attorney-client privilege and not available for public distribution.”

While there weren’t many specifics, the City of Lawrence’s response suggested that changes at its facilities might be on the table. City finance director Rachelle Mathews said in the city’s statement that the financial effects of SB 244 “outside of the mentioned government entity fines for non-compliance” would likely be “facility-based costs.”

Chladny said he’d not heard of any counties planning to alter their facilities. For now, he said, the best thing local governments can do is study the law and its implications, and organizations like his will be working alongside them as the details become clearer.

“We are working to help raise an awareness with counties of the penalty provisions in the law,” Chladny said. “We are also working to help them understand what compliance looks like in practice so they can avoid running into those situations.”