In recent years, a number of state legislatures considered bills that would restrict access to multiuser restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities (bathroom bills) on the basis of a definition of sex or gender consistent with sex assigned at birth—also known as biological sex. In nearly every state the proposed legislation was not passed and did not become law.

A recent ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (in Philadelphia) allowed transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with the students' gender identities, as opposed to the sex they were determined to have at birth. The plaintiffs—a group of high school students who identify as being the same sex they were determined to have at birth (cisgender)—alleged that the school’s bathroom and locker room policy violated their constitutional rights of bodily privacy, as well as Title IX, and Pennsylvania tort law.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the presence of transgender students in the locker and restrooms is no more offensive to Constitutional or Pennsylvania privacy law interests than the presence of the other students who are not transgender, and that their presence does not infringe on the plaintiffs' rights under Title IX. This ruling from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is the law in a limited geographic area, as the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

In Arizona, as in many other states, proposed legislation known as 'bathroom bills' aimed at restricting access to multiuser restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities based on biological sex at birth has not been passed into law. These bills have been controversial and have faced significant opposition. The legal landscape regarding the use of such facilities by transgender individuals is influenced by federal court decisions, including a notable ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This ruling upheld the rights of transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity and found that this does not violate the constitutional rights of privacy or Title IX protections of cisgender students. While this ruling is binding in the Third Circuit, which does not include Arizona, it reflects a broader trend in federal courts recognizing the rights of transgender individuals. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the Third Circuit's ruling in place, but it does not directly affect Arizona law. However, federal rulings can influence state law and policy, and Arizona entities must also comply with federal laws such as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.