The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it would allow abortion providers and activist groups to pursue a lower court challenge to a Texas law that bans most abortions in the Lone Star State once a fetal heartbeat is detected — though it was unclear how soon the justices could make a decision on the matter. 

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the two most recent Supreme Court appointees by former President Donald Trump, raised skeptical questions about the law’s structure — which places enforcement at the discretion of private citizens rather than state officials. 

The law, known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, allows people to bring civil action against anybody who performs an abortion after the cutoff of approximately six weeks, or aids or abets the procedure, and awards at least $10,000 for bringing successful lawsuits. 

The justices must determine whether the Justice Department or abortion providers can mount federal court challenges to the law.

The Texas Heartbeat Act, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in May, has been in effect since Sept. 1. It does not allow for exceptions for rape or incest but does for medical emergencies. 

The effects of the law have been immediate, as abortions are down 50 percent in Texas in September compared to a year ago, Texas Public Radio reported.

Hours before the law took effect, Barrett and Kavanaugh joined Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch to refuse a request by abortion providers to put it on hold. But on Monday, they continually pressed Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone II about the ins and outs of the law. 

“Millions and millions [of dollars in fines] retroactively imposed, even though the activity was perfectly lawful under all court orders and precedent at the time it was undertaken, right?” Kavanaugh asked Stone at one point. 

Barrett, for her part, interrogated Stone about provisions of the law that force providers to fight lawsuits one by one and, she said, don’t allow their constitutional rights to be “fully aired.”

The high court opted to take up the case on Oct. 22, moving with extraordinary speed and bypassing lower courts also considering challenges. 

If the justices decide to keep federal courts out of the process of challenging the Texas law, it is likely that some Republican-run state legislatures will attempt to pass new abortion restrictions that employ the same private enforcement structure. 

Justice Elena Kagan suggested that if her colleagues do not act against the Texas law, it would entice more states to flout legal precedent and restrict Americans’ constitutional rights.

“Guns. Same-sex marriage. Religious rights. Whatever you don’t like: go ahead,” she said.

Abortion opponents hope the court’s 6-3 conservative majority will either restrict abortion access or overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established a right to abortion nationwide.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 1 will also hear arguments against a Mississippi law that bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Mississippi law has been blocked by lower courts. 

Outside the Supreme Court on Monday, activists held signs saying “Let their hearts beat” and played Christian music.

Abortion rights activists held signs proclaiming, “Hands off our bodies” and “Abortion is essential.” 

Meanwhile, the justices are expected to hear arguments Wednesday against New York’s gun permit law that will determine who has the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. 

Under the law, enacted in 1913, a person applying for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public for self-defense must demonstrate “proper cause” — or actual need to be armed. 

Gun licenses can be unrestricted, allowing someone to carry a gun anywhere not prohibited by law, or restricted, allowing the person to carry a weapon in specific circumstances, like for hunting or target shooting, or traveling for work. 

Those challenging the law, including the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, argue the law hinders the ability of law-abiding citizens to get a license to carry a gun for self-protection. 

They say the Second Amendment backs the right of a person to carry a gun outside the home.

The state says the law’s restrictions are in place for public safety and overturning it would lead to more weapons on city streets and in bars, churches, schools and subways.

With Post wires