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 Florida, 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 recent ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which covers a different jurisdiction and does not include Florida, upheld the rights of transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. This ruling is not binding in Florida, as it is outside the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. However, it could influence future legal arguments and decisions within the state. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the Third Circuit's ruling in place within its jurisdiction but does not establish a nationwide precedent. In Florida, the current status is that there is no specific state statute that restricts access to sex-segregated facilities based on the sex assigned at birth, and the rights of transgender individuals in this context remain a developing area of law.