WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court kicked off a new term Monday with a first week of oral arguments that includes a case about a state ban on “conversion therapy” and a challenge to post-Election Day ballot counting.

The insular court also opened the term with a small change to its operations — broadcasting for the first time a series of announcements and attorney admissions, which normally happen before the start of each argument.

“I have the honor to announce on behalf of the court that the October 2024 term of the Supreme Court of the United States is now closed and the October 2025 term is now convened,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of a Colorado law banning so-called “conversion therapy” for minors during talk therapy. The law prohibits any practice that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Licensed professional counselor Kathy Chiles argued that the ban violates the First Amendment’s free speech rights because it amounts to a “gag order” on counselors who seek to help clients with their stated objectives in counseling, which could include efforts to “live consistently with God’s design.”

The state has defended the law, arguing that it falls within state authority to regulate professions like doctors and lawyers whose profession includes talking to clients. The state also argued that research has shown that conversion therapy is not effective.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge from Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and Republican presidential electors to an Illinois election rule that allows the counting of ballots up to 14 days after Election Day. A lower court found that Bost and the electors did not have the legal right to challenge Illinois’ ballot counting.

Republican campaign committees have backed Bost in the case, arguing that the later ballot deadline favors Democrats and should be reviewable by courts.

The Trump administration weighed in as well, filing a brief in June that argued that federal candidates should be able to challenge ballot procedures because there’s a risk that, by allowing the counting of the ballots, the candidate could lose. The Trump administration has also been allowed to participate in those oral arguments.

Illinois has defended its law, arguing more than half of states have had similar laws for a century or more and were originally meant to accommodate votes from soldiers in the Civil War. “Laws like Illinois’s allow these individuals and others to ensure that their votes will be counted, and their voices heard, in federal elections,” the state’s brief said.

Experts said siding with Bost could open the doors to more challenges to mail-in ballots, which were among the dozens of unsuccessful lawsuits launched by President Donald Trump following his loss in the 2020 election.

The case is one of several election law cases this term, including one over the limits of the Voting Rights Act that is set for argument Oct. 15.

Monday’s cases included a dispute over the right to counsel in a federal criminal case as well as the applicability of state law in a federal court trial.

Separately on Monday, the court denied requests from conservative influencer Laura Loomer to revive a lawsuit against social media companies and from convicted sexual predator Ghislaine Maxwell to overturn her conviction on multiple counts related to sex trafficking scheme she ran alongside late predator Jeffrey Epstein.

The court has also agreed to hear several cases from its so-called “long conference” last month, including a challenge to a Hawaii law that bans possessing guns in places like clubs, bars and restaurants unless the owners have affirmatively allowed them.

More broadly this term the justices have set for themselves a raft of high-profile cases, ranging from the legality of Trump’s broad tariff regime to the limits of the Voting Rights Act and state laws on transgender athletes in school sports.

The justices are expected to issue decisions in all of their cases by the conclusion of the term at the end of June.

The court has so far granted about 40 cases for this term and will likely accept another half dozen or more over the course of the term.

Last term, several late additions, including the challenge to the ban on social media giant TikTok and the dispute over the nationwide block on Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, became some of the most prominent of the term.

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.