The Supreme Court is once again being asked to referee the collision between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights, because apparently the justices have nothing better to do on a Tuesday. This time, the case involves whether Colorado can require preschools that accept public dollars to admit the children of same-sex couples.

"It seems like there's short shrift being given to religious liberty in the state of Colorado," said Joe Davis, part of the legal team at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty fighting the state. The group is back before the conservative-majority court after a string of victories, including last year when the justices allowed parents in a Maryland county to opt their children out of instruction using books with LGBTQ themes.

This round, Davis and his colleagues represent the Archdiocese of Denver, two parishes, and parents challenging Colorado's antidiscrimination mandate for preschools receiving state funds under the First Amendment. Colorado's universal preschool program funds 15 hours of weekly preschool per child, but participating schools must agree to provide families an "equal opportunity" to enroll regardless of various conditions - including sexual orientation and gender identity, alongside race, income level, and disability.

It's the latest in a series of Supreme Court battles over Colorado's LGBTQ protections. Last term, the justices ruled 8-1 that the state's "conversion therapy" ban impinged on a counselor's free speech rights. In 2023, the court ruled the state couldn't require an evangelical Christian web designer to provide same-sex wedding websites. And before that, the court sided - on narrow grounds - with a cake baker who launched a similar challenge to Colorado's law.

"I don't think there's going to be that Colorado is going to have better luck than last time - or the last several times," Davis said, perhaps hoping the fourth time's the charm.

The newest case is a key test of a 1990 Supreme Court precedent authored by the late conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia, which held that neutral and generally applicable laws are presumptively constitutional, even when they burden religious rights. That precedent has drawn criticism from some of today's conservative justices, who argue it threatens religious liberty. Three - Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and native Coloradan Neil Gorsuch - have explicitly called for it to be overturned.

Colorado says its preschool mandate aligns with the 1990 decision. The state and LGBTQ advocacy groups are holding out hope that the Supreme Court will agree, even with skepticism within the court's current 6-3 conservative majority. "If the court honors precedent, which it should, there is a very clear doctrine," said Sharon McGowan, senior vice president of policy and litigation at the Human Rights Campaign.

The Supreme Court has declined to consider outright overturning the 1990 precedent in this case. But the Catholic parishes hope the justices will take a narrow view of its scope, arguing it shouldn't reach public benefit programs at all. The Trump administration has thrown its support behind that argument, claiming Scalia in 1990 was focused on criminal laws, not something like Colorado's preschool mandate. The administration will appear at Tuesday's arguments alongside a lawyer for the Catholic parishes.

"The substantial burden on religious schools' ability to engage in core religious exercise is patent," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the court. "The law's myriad exceptions belie any compelling state interest in uniform, even-handed admissions criteria. And Colorado's failure to accommodate religious preschools undermines, not promotes, its stated interest in 'equal access.'"

Colorado counters that this misses the point and would create a "sweeping new rule." "This Court need not, and should not, redesign Free Exercise doctrine to decide this case, which involves impartial and uniform conditions on providers of publicly funded services," the state wrote in its brief. It argues the mandate isn't aimed at burdening religious schools but ensures no family is deprived of a public benefit.

"Everyone is participating and putting money into that coffer, right?" McGowan said. "Gay people, straight people - everyone is putting into that money pot, and so the state, I think, appropriately, wants to make sure that when it is drawing money from that communal pot, it is able to benefit all of the people."