WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will grant review to seven legal challenges to the Health a­­­nd Human Services’ contraceptive mandate filed by religious nonprofits.

Confirmed by the high court on Nov. 6, the news sparked applause from the plaintiffs and religious-freedom activists who had called for the justices to issue a definitive ruling on the controversial federal regulation. Now, experts are weighing how the consolidation of these cases will likely impact the outcome of lawsuits filed by the Little Sisters and other religious nonprofits.

“The court told lawyers to file a proposal by Nov. 16 on how these cases should be briefed, in order to minimize the number of filings and to avoid repetition,” reported SCOTUSblog in a post marking the news.

The religious nonprofits seek an exemption from a law that requires most employers to provide contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and surgical sterilization in their health plans. The Obama administration had asked the court to review only one case, filed by Priests for Life, which was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The court surely could have limited its review to one or two cases and held the rest of them until the one or two are resolved,” noted Gerard Bradley, a constitutional scholar at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

“Its decision to ‘consolidate’ seven cases indicates that at least four justices, which is the minimum number required for the court to take up any case, are trying to resolve as many issues as possible, and thus make clear how all the HHS mandate cases should be decided.”

Beyond the Little Sisters of the Poor, additional Catholic plaintiffs include Priests for Life Inc. and apostolates under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Washington and the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, Pa.

Douglas Laycock, an authority on religious-freedom issues at the University of Virginia Law School, expressed a measure of skepticism about any future attempt to consolidate a mix of cases and provide a coherent argument before the court.

“Seven cases, all sorts of different insurance plans, and the argument has evolved into the nitty-gritty details of how employer insurance plans are regulated,” Laycock told the Register. “This could be a mess.”

He noted that the plaintiffs would “have to pick one lawyer to argue for all seven; I assume it will be Paul Clement,” the same top advocate who represented Hobby Lobby, the for-profit craft-store chain that successfully challenged the mandate.

However, Bradley emphasized that all seven cases have a good deal in common. For example, their legal briefs all argue that the federal law’s narrow religious exemption violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA directs the government not to “substantially burden” religious freedom without a “compelling state interest.” When that interest has been established, the government must show that it has adopted the “least restrictive” means of advancing that interest.

“The ‘consolidation’ is chiefly meant to resolve questions arising from some important variations among these cases. The primary issue is whether conscripting these plaintiffs works a ‘substantial burden’ upon their free exercise of religion,” said Bradley.

A second issue, he continued, is “whether it makes any difference if the religious nonprofits are self-insured, insured by a carrier such as Aetna or have the Little Sisters’ arrangement, which is what the law calls a ‘church plan’ and which presents some unique considerations of its own.

“My judgment is that, notwithstanding some significant differences in these arrangements, the court should find all of the plaintiffs to be under a ‘substantial burden,’ especially self-insured nonprofits.”

In 2012, after the mandate’s narrow religious exemption was criticized by the U.S. bishops as an unprecedented threat to religious freedom, the White House introduced a series of “accommodations.” The last one provided several options for religious nonprofits that oppose the law, including the directive that they contact HHS to signal their refusal to provide this coverage on religious grounds.

Daniel Blomberg, a legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest group that represents a slew of religious plaintiffs in HHS cases, including a lawsuit filed by EWTN (the parent company of the Register), echoed Bradley’s judgment.

While Blomberg noted that the Little Sisters’ employees are covered under a church plan, which provides additional protections for religious employers, he concluded that the seven cases would be strengthened by facing the justices together.

“It will be helpful for ministries to be side by side,” he said.

The justices have agreed to review a second issue raised by the Little Sisters cases — whether they must obey the law even though their health insurer would not be required to participate because it has an exempt church plan.

The seven cases represent almost 40 plaintiffs, both Catholic and Christian nonprofits. Health plans run the gamut — from church plans and other self-insured plans to secular insurance carriers, like Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Under the accommodation, the government has directed secular insurance carriers or the third-party administrators (TPAs) that manage the self-insured plans to cover the costs of free contraception.

Blomberg noted that the administration has offered to pay the TPA to provide the coverage when religious employers refuse to do so. But the plaintiffs, including the Little Sisters, do not want their health plans to facilitate such coverage, even if they are not required to underwrite it.

When the justices announced that they would grant review to all seven cases, they also noted that they would set aside a second question: whether the federal law wrongly discriminated against the plaintiffs by creating two classes of religious employers.

The federal law grants an exemption to places of worship and dioceses, but denies one to most Catholic apostolates. The U.S. bishops and their supporters have argued that this approach reflects an attempt to restrict religious freedom and conscience protections to the four walls of a church and not extend them to the public square.

“In our cert petition, we listed this question as a second issue,” said Mickey Pohl, the Jones Day lawyer who worked on the lawsuit filed by the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie.

Under the law’s definition of an exempted religious employer, Pohl told the Register, “Church ministries are treated as a junior-varsity religious organization that has to ask for an accommodation.”

Though Pohl was disappointed that the court set aside the issue, he suggested that it might still be addressed in the court’s opinions, which are expected by June.

“If they don’t take care of it in the language of opinions that will come out next year, it may get litigated at another time,” he predicted.

That said, Pohl welcomed the decision to grant review to his clients and the six other cases filed by Catholic and Christian nonprofits.

“My main thought on the consolidation is that there are different kinds of organizations involved and different kinds of insurance arrangements involved,” said Pohl, who noted that Geneva College, like most other Christian plaintiffs, only opposed the requirement that it cover abortifacients. “Yet the court has granted the broadest review of different organizations’ objections.”

The decision to combine cases with different arguments underscores a key point raised by all the plaintiffs’ legal briefs, Pohl concluded.

It is not for the government to decide which sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected or set aside. Legal precedent allows religious believers to make that decision, and the government, in turn, must adopt the least restrictive means of advancing a “compelling” state interest.

By June, Pohl and other lawyers representing the apostolates challenging the laws will know whether the justices agree with their view — that RFRA’s high threshold will secure another landmark victory for religious freedom.

Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.