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 California, there are no 'bathroom bills' that restrict access to multiuser restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities based on biological sex at birth. Instead, California law supports the rights of transgender individuals to use facilities that align with their gender identity. The state's legal framework, including the California Education Code, specifically prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public schools, which extends to the use of facilities that correspond to a student's gender identity. While the ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is not binding in California, it is consistent with California's approach to this issue. The Third Circuit ruling, which applies within its jurisdiction, upheld the rights of transgender students to use facilities that match their gender identity and found that this does not violate the constitutional rights of privacy or Title IX protections of cisgender students. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the Third Circuit's decision in place within its geographic area, but it does not directly affect California law.