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 Georgia, as in many other states, there have been discussions and attempts to pass legislation that would restrict access to multiuser restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities based on biological sex at birth, commonly referred to as 'bathroom bills.' However, these proposed bills have not been successful in becoming law in Georgia. The state currently does not have a statute that mandates the use of public restrooms based on biological sex. The ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which allows transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity, does not directly affect Georgia, as it is only binding in the Third Circuit's jurisdiction, which does not include Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the Third Circuit's ruling in place, but it does not set a nationwide precedent. Therefore, in Georgia, there is no specific state statute or federal law that restricts access to sex-segregated facilities based on the sex assigned at birth, and the state's practices may vary by locality and institution.