Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-2347 (2026)

prohibition of environmental, social, and governance standards in public contracts. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

prohibition of environmental, social, and governance standards in public contracts. 

(1) As used in this section:

(a)  "Contract" means an agreement for the provision of goods or performance of services in exchange for remuneration between a public entity and another party that:
(i)   Has a value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more that is to be paid wholly or partly from the funds of a public entity; and
(ii)  Is not subject to the provisions of section 67-5711C, Idaho Code, or chapter 92, title 67, Idaho Code.
(b)  "Contractor" means any person or entity who has entered or is attempting to enter into a contract, including but not limited to a construction manager licensed pursuant to chapter 45, title 54, Idaho Code, and design-build entities as provided in chapter 57, title 67, Idaho Code.
(c)  "Environmental, social, and governance standards" means standards that would screen or score contractors based on subjective ethical or sustainability criteria unrelated to the specifications of a contract or the qualifications of a contractor.
(d)  "Public entity" means the state of Idaho or any political subdivision thereof, including all boards, commissions, agencies, institutions, authorities, and bodies politic and corporate of the state, created by or in accordance with state law or rule.
(2)  No contract shall be accepted or denied by a public entity based on environmental, social, and governance standards.
(3)  A contractor not selected for a contract with a public entity may assert noncompliance with this section as a basis to challenge the award of the contract under the administrative and legal processes otherwise applicable to the award of the contract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: State v. Yzaguirre, 163 P.3d 1183 (Idaho 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Yzaguirre, 163 P.3d 1183 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 28× “The Commissioners are not subject to civil penalties unless, when they held the executive session, they knew it was not in compliance with the open meeting law.”
Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 345 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 48× “Idaho Code section 67-2347 addresses the enforcement mechanisms and remedies available when there has been a violation of the open meeting law.”
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 14× “Section 67-2347(4) provides for a private right of action, and any suit brought for the purpose of having an action declared “null and void” must be commenced within thirty (30) days of the time of the alleged violation.”
City of McCall v. Buxton, 201 P.3d 629 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 4× “2 On May 24, 2007, the city council ratified the filing of this lawsuit at a meeting held in compliance with the open meeting laws.”
Gardner v. Evans, 719 P.2d 1185 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 6× “This action, they argue, should be held null and void pursuant to I.C. § 67-2347. The plaintiffs also allege that Ugaki and Barnes then agreed to hire Howard Barton — another defendant in this case — to replace Walhof.”
State Ex Rel. Roark v. City of Hailey, 633 P.2d 576 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 6× “The only statute dealing with the consequences of a violation of the act is I.C. § 67-2347, which reads as follows: “VIOLATIONS.”
Richard H. Leavitt v. Olivia Craven, 302 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “The Commission argues that the requested writ of mandamus may not issue because Leavitt has an adequate remedy at law, specifically, the ability to pursue a civil action for the claimed violation of the open meeting law pursuant to I.C. § 67-2347(6). The Commission’s argument…”
Baker v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Emmett, 691 P.2d 1223 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 8× “*611 Violations of the Open Meetings Law are governed by I.C. § 67-2347. That section provides that '“[a]ny action taken at any meeting which fails to comply with the provisions of §§ 67-2340 through 67-2346, Idaho Code, shall be null and void.”
McKinsey v. Vernon, 941 P.2d 326 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 2× “McKINSEY DID NOT RAISE THE CLAIM OF A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AND, THEREFORE, IS PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING IT AT THIS TIME. McKinsey contends that the meeting of the Board violated the Idaho open meeting *358 law, I.”
Baker v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Emmett, 691 P.2d 1223 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 8× “Therefore, they conclude that the decision by the District to implement the RIF policy should be null and void.”
David Welch v. Cochise Bd. of Supervisors (Ariz. 2021). “at 192 ¶ 14 (refusing Arnold’s 4 At the time Arnold was decided, the same enforcement provision was codified at Idaho Code § 67-2347 (6). See 345 P.3d at 222 .”
— Idaho Code § 67-2347(1) — 4 cases
Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 345 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2015). “Idaho Code section 67-2347 addresses the enforcement mechanisms and remedies available when there has been a violation of the open meeting law.”
State v. Yzaguirre, 163 P.3d 1183 (Idaho 2007). “The Commissioners are not subject to civil penalties unless, when they held the executive session, they knew it was not in compliance with the open meeting law.”
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). “Section 67-2347(4) provides for a private right of action, and any suit brought for the purpose of having an action declared “null and void” must be commenced within thirty (30) days of the time of the alleged violation.”
McKinsey v. Vernon, 941 P.2d 326 (Idaho 1997). “McKINSEY DID NOT RAISE THE CLAIM OF A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AND, THEREFORE, IS PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING IT AT THIS TIME. McKinsey contends that the meeting of the Board violated the Idaho open meeting *358 law, I.”
— Idaho Code § 67-2347(2) — 1 case
State v. Yzaguirre, 163 P.3d 1183 (Idaho 2007). “The Commissioners are not subject to civil penalties unless, when they held the executive session, they knew it was not in compliance with the open meeting law.”
— Idaho Code § 67-2347(4) — 1 case
Petersen v. Franklin Cnty., 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1997). “Section 67-2347(4) provides for a private right of action, and any suit brought for the purpose of having an action declared “null and void” must be commenced within thirty (30) days of the time of the alleged violation.”
— Idaho Code § 67-2347(5) — 1 case
Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 345 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2015). “Idaho Code section 67-2347 addresses the enforcement mechanisms and remedies available when there has been a violation of the open meeting law.”
— Idaho Code § 67-2347(6) — 2 cases
Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 345 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2015). “Idaho Code section 67-2347 addresses the enforcement mechanisms and remedies available when there has been a violation of the open meeting law.”
Richard H. Leavitt v. Olivia Craven, 302 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2012). “The Commission argues that the requested writ of mandamus may not issue because Leavitt has an adequate remedy at law, specifically, the ability to pursue a civil action for the claimed violation of the open meeting law pursuant to I.C. § 67-2347(6). The Commission’s argument…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.