The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Idaho to begin enforcing a state law barring transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming care, at least for now. This was the first time the justices have intervened in a case that touches on the question of gender-affirming care for minors and transgender health more broadly.

The case, Poe v. Labrador, concerns whether Idahos ban on gender-affirming care is constitutional. The justices did not weigh in on the merits of the case in Mondays decision, instead focusing on the question of whether the state could enforce the ban and for whom. For now, the ban will not affect the two anonymous plaintiffs, transgender Idaho teenagers, who sued the state.

Last May, Idahos Republican-controlled legislature passed the Vulnerable Child Protection Act , which prohibits transgender children from receiving a range of gender-affirming treatments, including puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, which are the most common forms of treatment. Medical providers who violate the act face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.

Two months after Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) signed the bill into law, the two plaintiffs, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the state, asking for a judge to block the law on the grounds that it violated their constitutional rights to equal protection.

In December, a district court judge temporarily blocked the ban from taking effect. Idaho tried to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but the judge denied the request.

Then Ral Labrador, the states Republican attorney general, applied for emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Labrador asked the nations highest court to limit the injunction solely to the two plaintiffs, thereby allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for the rest of trans minors in the state. Thats what the court did on Monday.

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a lead attorney on the case for the ACLU, said she is concerned about the two teenagers ability to access care in Idaho even in light of the decision.

Its a little soon for us to tell how its going to play out, Nowlin-Sohl said. Its a real concern of ours, that we have argued to the Supreme Court, that having an exception for only two people is a really scary prospect, and for doctors and pharmacists that are potentially facing a felony and 10 years in prison for giving this care, that might feel like a big risk on their part to provide this care for just these two people.

The plaintiffs lawyers additionally argued that restricting the injunction to just the two teenagers puts them at risk of having to reveal their identities as transgender plaintiffs any time they go to the doctor or get prescriptions filled.

There is no way for the individual Plaintiffs to get relief at all, the lawyers wrote.