The Supreme Court on Monday told federal judges to revisit decisions siding with transgender individuals in light of the justices’ ruling this month that allows states to ban gender transition care for minors.

The directive from the justices, announced in its routine orders list, could upend lower-court rulings involving transgender rights in four states. One cleared the way for transgender individuals in Oklahoma to change their sex designation on birth certificates. The others involve state health policies in Idaho, West Virginia and North Carolina that do not cover certain treatments for transgender patients.

The justices issued the final rulings of the court’s term Friday. One of their most high-profile decisions came June 18, upholding Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for transgender minors. The 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting, said the law — and those like it in more than 20 other states — does not discriminate on the basis of sex.

The ruling did not address the validity of other policies restricting access for transgender individuals to bathrooms, military service and health care.

In the coming days, the Supreme Court could also announce whether it will take up a trio of cases next term involving the contentious issue of transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. The justices considered at their private conference last week whether to review challenges to laws in Arizona, Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from participation in women’s and girl’s sports at schools.

Josh Block, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Supreme Court’s action is common practice, especially at the end of its term, and does not necessarily mean the justices think the lower courts should find that the cases were wrongly decided.

It’s more akin to the Supreme Court telling the lower courts, “Here’s a new development you should consider,” he said. “I don’t think that it signals one way or the other what the outcome is going to be.”

Most notably, he said, the justices in the Tennessee case about access to gender transition care for young people did not answer whether the court’s reasoning in a different major case about transgender rights, Bostock v. Clayton County, applies in contexts outside of employment discrimination. In the Bostock case, the court said it is “impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Some lower courts have invoked Bostock’s reasoning to find that other laws restricting transgender rights violate the Constitution’s equal protection provision.

In the Oklahoma case, Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) issued an executive order to stop the state’s practice of allowing transgender individuals to obtain birth certificates with amended sex designations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said the state’s policy unlawfully discriminates based on transgender status and sex, and relied in part on the Supreme Court’s rationale in Bostock.

In the health care cases, a closely divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that state plans in North Carolina and West Virginia that bar coverage of medically necessary treatments for transgender patients violate the Constitution.

North Carolina’s health plan for state employees and teachers excluded coverage for certain transition care. West Virginia’s Medicaid program covers some gender transition care, but not surgery. For instance, the plan covers mastectomies to treat cancer but not to treat gender dysphoria in transgender men.

“Conditioning access to these surgeries based on a patient’s sex assigned at birth stems from gender stereotypes about how men or women should present,” the 4th Circuit majority said, also citing Bostock.