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 Minnesota, as in many other states, proposed legislation known as 'bathroom bills' aimed at restricting access to multiuser restrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex has not been passed into law. These bills would have mandated that individuals use facilities corresponding to the sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. However, a significant legal precedent relevant to this issue comes from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled that transgender students are allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. This decision was based on the finding that the presence of transgender students does not violate the constitutional rights of bodily privacy of cisgender students, nor does it infringe upon their rights under Title IX or Pennsylvania tort law. While this ruling is legally binding only within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction, it can influence legal thinking and future cases across the country, including Minnesota. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the Third Circuit's ruling in place, providing a degree of legal precedent for similar cases, although it does not directly change the law in Minnesota.