Restroom access for medical conditions

Summary#

The Restroom Access Act of 2025 is a proposed new federal law, not an amendment to an existing Act. Its goal is to give some customers with eligible medical conditions access to a retail establishment’s restroom that is not usually open to the public. The bill is at the introduced stage; it is not law.

  • A retail establishment would have to allow access during business hours only if all five conditions are met: the customer has an eligible medical condition and presents the required ID card; at least two employees are working; access would not create an obvious health or safety risk; and no public restroom is available to the customer.
  • The bill directs the Secretary of Labor to establish a system to create and distribute ID cards within 180 days after enactment. A medical professional must certify the person’s eligible condition.
  • Eligible conditions include inflammatory bowel disease (the bill lists Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome), use of an ostomy device, and another diagnosed condition—including pregnancy—that requires immediate restroom access.
  • The bill defines a customer as someone lawfully on the premises and a retail establishment as a business open to the public to sell goods or services moving in or affecting interstate commerce.

What it means for you#

  • Customers with eligible medical conditions: If the bill became law, you could use a restroom that is not usually public only when every listed condition is met and you present the bill’s ID card. The bill does not require a store to open such a restroom when a condition is unmet.
  • Retail establishments: You would have a duty to allow access in the circumstances listed above. The bill does not require retail restrooms generally to be open to the public.
  • U.S. Department of Labor: The Secretary of Labor would have to establish the card system within 180 days of enactment.
  • General public: The bill creates a conditional access duty; it does not set out a separate public restroom service or a process for customers to appeal a refusal.

Money#

No cost estimate is included in the supplied material. No publicly available information.

  • The bill requires the Secretary of Labor to establish and distribute ID cards, but gives no estimate of the staffing or other costs and does not specify funding.
  • The bill does not set a fee for cards or a fine for a retail establishment that does not comply.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not state when the retail access duty would begin; it gives a deadline for setting up the card system but no separate start date.
  • It does not explain how someone applies for a card, what evidence is needed, how long a card lasts, or how certification is checked.
  • It does not define “obvious health or safety risk” or explain how to determine whether a public restroom is available.
  • It does not identify who would enforce the access duty, provide a complaint or appeal process, or specify penalties.
  • The text does not explain how the Department of Labor would fund or operate the card system.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that a person who needs immediate restroom access may face a practical barrier when no public restroom is available.
  • Requiring a medical certification and an ID card could give stores a way to verify eligibility rather than relying only on a customer’s statement.
  • The conditions limit the duty: it applies during business hours, when at least two employees are working, and when access would not create an obvious health or safety risk.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill creates a duty for stores but does not specify how refusals would be handled or what consequences would follow.
  • The bill leaves key decisions—such as what counts as an obvious safety risk or an available public restroom—undefined.
  • The card system may require federal staff and resources, but the bill gives no cost estimate or funding details.
  • The bill sets no separate start date for the retail duty, which could leave unclear how that duty relates to the 180-day deadline for the card system.