The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case about whether state and local governments can enforce bans on anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy for children, a discredited and harmful practice that has been banned by 23 states and D.C.

The case, which will be argued in the new term that begins in October, began in Colorado Springs, Colorado where a licensed professional counselor filed a challenge to a ban in 2022, arguing the law interferes with her ability to treat patients with “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings.” 

The Supreme Court in 2023 declined to hear a challenge to conversion therapy bans out of Washington state, but conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of taking up the case.

The Colorado therapist, Kaley Chiles, is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado struck down Chiles’s lawsuit in 2022. Her case was appealed to the Supreme Court from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which upheld the ban in 2023 on the grounds that it regulates professional conduct, not speech.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement on Monday:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case isn’t just about so-called ‘conversion therapy’ – it’s about whether extremists can use our courts to push their dangerous agenda, in an effort to erase LGBTQ+ people and gut protections that keep our kids safe. There’s no debate: so-called ‘conversion therapy’ is a dangerous practice, not therapy, and it has no place in our communities. These bans exist to protect LGBTQ+ children from harm—period.

Attacks on LGBTQ+ rights are the entry point to attacks on all of our rights. The same people trying to legalize abuse under the guise of ‘therapy’ are the ones banning books, ripping away reproductive rights, and undermining our democracy. The Supreme Court must uphold the 10th Circuit decision finding that these laws are constitutional.”

HRC added, “So-called ‘conversion therapy,’ sometimes known as ‘reparative therapy,’ is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

The group continued, “Such practices have been rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization for decades, but due to continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ+ people, some practitioners continue to conduct conversion therapy. Minors are especially vulnerable, and conversion therapy can lead to depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, and suicide.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 announced it will consider the case of a group of Montgomery County parents who are challenging a policy that does not allow them to “opt out” their children from classes in which lessons or books on LGBTQ-related topics are taught.

The parents in a federal lawsuit they filed in May 2023 allege the Montgomery County Public Schools policy violates their religious beliefs.

A federal judge in Maryland on Aug. 24, 2023, ruled against the parents. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

“Under the 4th Circuit’s reasoning, parents cannot be heard until after the damage has been done to their children,” reads the Supreme Court filing that CBS News obtained. “But there is no unringing that bell — by then, innocence will be lost and beliefs undermined.”

In recent closed-door conservative conferences, U.S. Supreme Court justices were eyeing other cases that would implicate key rights for transgender Americans, The Hill reported on Saturday.

Among the legal questions at issue in those disputes are matters of “parental rights,” the ability of transgender athletes to play on sports teams consistent with their gender identity, and rules requiring government sponsored health plans to cover transgender medical care.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointed by President-elect Donald Trump, made reference to these cases during oral argument earlier this month in U.S. v. Skrmetti, whose ruling will decide the constitutionality of state laws banning gender affirming health treatments for minors.

“If you prevail here on the standard of review, what would that mean for women’s and girls’ sports in particular?” Kavanaugh asked. Barrett later revisited the question, asking “Could you address Justice Kavanaugh’s questions about what the implications of this case would be for the athletic context or the bathrooms context?” 

“We would have no objection to explicit language saying this decision does not in any way or should not be understood to affect the separate state interests there that have to be evaluated on their own terms,” responded U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is arguing on the side of plaintiffs challenging Tennessee’s law banning gender affirming care for youth.

The Hill notes that the justices’ treatment of appellate cases over the sports issue in West Virginia and Idaho indicates they are likely interested in adjudicating the matter — but not until Skrmetti is decided, which is expected to come in June.

Likewise with respect to battles over West Virginia and North Carolina’s refusal to cover transgender medical care with government-sponsored insurance.