New Hampshire officials urge the Supreme Court to refuse an appeal in a nudity case.

CONCORD, N.H. — There’s no reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a New Hampshire nudity case, state officials said.

The high court is deciding whether to accept the appeal of three women who were convicted of public nudity at Weirs Beach in Laconia in 2016.

As part of a campaign advocating for the rights of women to go topless, Heidi Lilley, Kia Sinclair and Ginger Pierro argue that the city’s ordinance discriminates on the basis of gender and that the Supreme Court should step in to settle disagreements on the issue.

The court asked the state in September to respond. In its filing this past week, the state attorney general’s office said nearly every state high court and federal appeals court has upheld similar ordinances.

The conflict the women identify is “illusory,” the state said, and the court need not “wade into areas better left for the policy making of local legislative bodies.”

The state also argues that the New

Hampshire Supreme Court was correct in concluding that the Laconia ordinance does not discriminate based on gender but rather “simply reflects common understanding of nudity, and that men and women are not interchangeable within those understandings.”

While the women argue that the ordinance is based on “archaic, overbroad, and obsolescent notions about gender,” the state said it is consistent with other laws that recognize the female breast as an erogenous body part warranting concealment in public.