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 Nebraska, as of the current knowledge cutoff in 2023, there have been no laws passed that restrict access to multiuser restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities based on biological sex at birth. This means that there are no statewide 'bathroom bills' that have been enacted into law in Nebraska. The ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which allows transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identities, does not directly apply to Nebraska, as it is not within the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. However, the decision may influence future legal considerations and discussions within the state. It's important to note that while this federal appellate decision sets a precedent within the Third Circuit, the United States Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the issue open to interpretation and potential future litigation in other jurisdictions, including Nebraska.