It is quite a spectacle:

* the number of cases filed against the federal government to stop the contraceptives mandate-now more than 40 and continuing to grow;

* the diversity of the plaintiffs–Catholic health systems, Catholic universities, a Catholic TV network, Catholic Charities agencies, Catholic-owned companies, and also a variety of Protestant colleges, an evangelical publisher, and diverse Protestant-owned companies.

And it is difficult to keep up with the court decisions being made–and not just because the mass media has been AWOL on this amazing series of religious freedom cases. Also the courts have been of several minds about the cases: which ones are ripe for decisions, which organizations might have a viable case, whether an appeals court should uphold or reverse a lower court’s decision against a plaintiff.

There are now two good overview resources:

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s HHS Mandate Information Central lists all of the cases and decisions, with links to the court opinions and related documents.

Greg Baylor of the Alliance Defending Freedom has published a blogpost, “HHS Mandate Cases: A Scorecard,” summarizing the state of the cases so far.

Baylor notes that of the 15 lawsuits filed by companies, the courts have granted some relief to the companies in more than half of the cases, stopping application of the mandate to those companies pending a trial. There is no guarantee that any of these companies will win their cases. Yet it is striking that, although the federal government has strongly argued that companies and their owners cannot in principle have any valid religious or conscience claims–the for-profit world supposedly is immaculately secular–many judges think the companies have enough of chance of prevailing that a preliminary injunction should be issued to stop implementation of the mandate.

The non-profit plaintiffs have not fared so well. Some cases have been dismissed outright; others seem on their way to being dismissed. The dismissals are an irony because clearly even the federal government believes that the religious nonprofit plaintiffs–in sharp comparison to the religious businesses–do have legitimate religious or conscience claims. That’s why, after crafting an exemption that applies only to churches, the President and the Department of Health and Human Services promised to come up with an “accommodation” for the non-church religious organizations, and also instituted a “Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor” for them–a promise of no prosecution of these organizations for a year while the government comes up with that promised religious accommodation.

But it is just that promise of an accommodation and the temporary stay of execution that has led courts not to rule in favor of the faith-based nonprofit colleges, charities, and health organizations. We don’t need to rule, the judges are saying, because you are not in imminent danger and, besides, the government has promised to craft a solution for you. One court wisely pressed the federal lawyers to state on the record that a significant solution is being crafted and will be announced no later than the end of March, 2013. A first report by the federal government on its progress is due to the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, by mid-February.

What kind of accommodation will the federal government offer? Which organizations will it cover-religious companies as well as faith-based nonprofits? Will it cover all faith-based nonprofits or only those the government deems sufficiently religious? Will it simply reflect a divide-and-conquer strategy, appeasing just enough faith-based organizations to quell the religious freedom uproar, while leaving the conscience claims of many other organizations unprotected?

Most important: will the accommodation in effect repair the wrongful division the federal government has created in federal law between churches–given an exemption as worthy of full religious freedom protection–and faith-based service organizations–promised only a lesser accommodation because they are considered not to be fully religious organizations with a fully religious mission of service to the community.