In 2012, the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that required students to learn the basics of sex education for all public schools.
But the same year, President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio all attended the same high school.
The Supreme Court also struck down an Illinois law that banned transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice.
The five judges on the court had been appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The Obama administration, which had sued to block the law, said the decision was based on a flawed legal theory that said a state could regulate a person’s sex based on their gender identity.
But it said the justices should have applied their “strong, clear-eyed” interpretation of the First Amendment.
When the justices ruled last year, they had not yet decided the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy who was denied access to the boys’ restroom at his elementary school in Gloucester County, Virginia, because the school district did not allow transgender students to use it.
The Justice Department, the Justice Department’s civil rights division, argued that it should have appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court declined to hear the case, ruling that the administration’s arguments for why the state could not legally force students to attend the school were without merit.
The Trump administration’s stance on transgender students in schools, however, was not the only decision the high court has not yet weighed in on.
Last month, the justices agreed to review the district of Texas’ ban on gender-reassignment surgery for transgender students, which is currently pending in the courts.
The decision could set up a nationwide showdown over whether transgender people can legally use bathrooms in schools that do not match their gender identities.
The justices were not the first to question whether a school should be able to dictate a student’s gender identity or behavior.
The U.K. High Court in 2010 struck down part of a British law that barred discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, but the case has since been overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.
In March, a federal appeals court struck down North Carolina’s law banning trans people from using bathrooms consistent with their gender identifications.
The court’s new rules, however — which are likely to take effect in the coming months — are expected to significantly narrow what schools can do about transgender students.
The new rules would make it much easier for schools to bar transgender students and others from using certain restrooms and locker rooms that do match their biological sex.
For transgender students who are allowed to use the facilities of their gender, the court said, it would be much easier to avoid having to use a different bathroom.
And for those students who can’t use a bathroom, they would be able “to use a school bathroom of the gender they identify with,” which could be designated by the school or locker room administrator, the panel said.
The ruling could also provide some guidance to schools and colleges about how they should deal with transgender students whose gender identity does not match the gender on their birth certificate, the commission said.
“It would be a lot easier for transgender people to live their lives in safety, and it would allow schools to make the best decisions they can about how to teach students about their identity and to accommodate their needs,” said Brian Beutler, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group.
The Obama administration had asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from Gavin Grimm’s family, and they were among the legal groups that filed a brief asking the justices to overturn the ruling.
In that case, the family argued that the ruling was based entirely on the wrong legal theory and that the court should have allowed Gavin to use public bathrooms that corresponded with his gender identity and not the gender assigned to him at birth.
The brief was also joined by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Human Rights Campaign.
The commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.