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 South Dakota, as in many other states, there have been legislative efforts to restrict access to multiuser restrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex at birth, commonly referred to as 'bathroom bills.' However, these proposed bills have generally not been passed into law. The recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands, does not directly impact South Dakota law. This ruling upheld the rights of transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity and found that this does not violate the constitutional rights of privacy or Title IX protections of cisgender students. While this ruling sets a precedent within the Third Circuit, it does not alter the legal landscape in South Dakota, as the state falls under the jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 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 standard. Therefore, South Dakota's regulations on access to sex-segregated facilities remain governed by state statutes and federal law as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit.