Originally published in Deseret News.

Faith-based organizations make significant economic contributions and provide crucial social services in America, especially for low-income children and vulnerable individuals. A 2016 study estimated that the value of religion’s contribution to the United States is $1.2 trillion per year, including $438 billion from religiously connected businesses and $303 billion in education, health care and charitable services.

Among the religious contributions helping vulnerable people are 78,000 mental health programs, 120,000 programs for the unemployed, 26,000 programs to help people with HIV/AIDS, and 25,000 programs that seek to reduce pollution and improve the environment. Further, in a study of social services that were provided by religious congregations in Philadelphia, Ram Cnaan and Stephanie Boddie found that the “primary beneficiaries” of religious social services were children, who were served by 49.2% of all such programs.

These valuable social and economic contributions from religion-based organizations can easily be undermined by regulatory burdens. Often well-intended, laws that regulate religious social service programs or religious businesses can force these organizations to take resources that would otherwise go toward helping vulnerable children or creating jobs that support families, and instead use them to fill out paperwork or pay for lawsuits. That outcome is good for no one. Ongoing litigation over a requirement to pay for contraceptives for employees has demonstrated this reality.

In 2009, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which — among many, many other things — directed executive branch agencies to issue rules on types of health care that had to be offered without cost by employers’ insurance plans. One result of that directive was a “contraceptive mandate” — employers had to pay for any FDA-approved contraceptive. The rule also included a narrow religious exemption for churches that objected to contraception on religious grounds. Failure to offer the coverage would result in steep fines.

For most employers, this did not create any particular concern, but two sets of employers objected. The first, of whom Hobby Lobby was a prominent example, objected to providing two of the contraceptives, which they argued would result in an abortion. Lawsuits followed. The U.S. Supreme Court assessed the legality of the rule under a 1993 law passed by Congress, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. This law requires that any government action that creates a substantial burden on religious practice has to advance a compelling government purpose and must be carefully crafted so as to advance that purpose without unnecessarily infringing on the religious practice.

In Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, the court ruled that the fines Hobby Lobby would have to pay for not covering the two types of contraceptives were a substantial burden and that even if the government’s interest in increasing access to contraceptives was substantial, it could have met that objective without requiring the family who owned Hobby Lobby to violate their beliefs.

In the wake of that decision, as lawsuits by religious groups continued, the agencies struggled to create a rule that would allow religious nonprofits and others to avoid offering contraceptive coverage at odds with their beliefs. The most prominent organization to object was Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns which provided charitable care to low-income elderly people. They were involved in protracted litigation with the agencies which continued into 2017.

So, in 2017, the agencies created a broader religious exemption to the mandate that would exempt organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor, as well as religious schools. The state of Pennsylvania — later joined by New Jersey — then challenged the rules and a federal judge in that state said the exemption rule could not take effect anywhere in the U.S. While the new rule is being defended by the federal government’s attorneys, the Little Sisters of the Poor also intervened in the lawsuit so they could argue in favor of the rule that protected them.

The district court and appeals court ruled in favor of the states that wanted a narrow religious exemption, and the Supreme Court decided on Jan. 17 to take the case. The court is expected to deal with a number of issues, including whether the agencies followed the appropriate procedure in creating the broad exemption, whether an organization affected by a rule can participate in a lawsuit challenging that rule, and whether a federal court in one state can issue a ruling that applies to all states.

The most important religious liberty question, though, is the most basic: Can the federal government expand the original — stingy — religious exemptions to make them more expansive so religiously motivated organizations can do their work without fear of running afoul of the law?

The initial briefs in the case will likely be submitted to the Supreme Court within two months, and the court may decide this major religious liberty case by summer. Then, hopefully, the Little Sisters of the Poor can return all their efforts to caring for seniors who do not have the resources to care for themselves.