The Supreme Court accepted a case Monday that will determine if a state has the right to restrict selling violent video games to minors, AP reports.

The California law, signed into effect by Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar in 2005, would strengthen the current video game rating system and ban the sale and rental of excessively violent video games to anyone under the age of 18.  However, the federal court in San Francisco deemed the law unconstitutional before it even came into effect because they claimed that it violated the rights of minors.  The case is now headed to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not video games are protected by the First amendment.

Critics of the law argue that the existing rating system informs parents if a game is appropriate for their child to play, and that banning certain games would be considered censorship of artistic and commercial content.

The state claims that the current rating system does not do enough to prevent minors from playing violent video games, which the state defines as games that give players the choice of “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in offensive ways. Supporters of the law also argue that research reveals a “casual connection” between playing such games and aggression, anti-social behavior and a desensitization to violence.  The federal judges have dismissed that claim, stating that no conclusive research on the topic has been done.

Last week, the high court struck down a federal law banning videos that depicted animal cruelty and video game creators believe that games should be given the same rights as those videos.  However, the difference with this case is that this law was created to protect minors, which could affect the court’s decision.  Supporters of the law the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing porn apply in this case.

The court will hear arguments for the case starting in the fall.