The 40 cases filed against the HHS contraceptives mandate are in various stages of consideration or awaiting action or appeal. The plaintiffs are not eligible for the exemption because they are not churches.

But many of them–the nonprofit organizations, such as colleges–are currently shielded from the mandate because of the “temporary enforcement safe harbor”: the federal government’s promise not to prosecute them during the year lasting to the end of July, 2013.

The government has promised during this year to come up with a new “accommodation”–not the full religious freedom protection of the exemption the churches have but some kind of arrangement that is supposed to offer non-church organizations some balm for their aggrieved consciences. The courts have said that the cases brought by nonprofit organizations are not ripe for consideration, because of the one-year reprieve.

On the other hand, for-profit companies, no matter the conscience claims of their religious owners, are by definition not eligible for the one-year reprieve but instead must comply with the mandate when their new plan year begins on or after August 1, 2012. Judges have to decide now whether these owners have a legitimate claim that might trump the government’s mandate.

So, in the case Legatus v. Kathleen Sebelius, the judge ruled against a preliminary injunction for Legatus, a nonprofit organization–it has the temporary reprieve. But he did award a preliminary injunction to the other plaintiff, Weingartz Supply Co., a Catholic-owned business–it has no temporary reprieve.

And the judge told the federal government: Show me you are actually taking steps to develop an “accommodation” for non-exempt organizations that object to the contraceptives mandate. Judge Cleland said: “The Government is DIRECTED to file a brief statement describing the status of the amendment process for final regulations occurring under the temporary enforcement safe harbor not later than the first Monday of each month.”

Assuming the federal government actually complies, at long last non-exempt organizations might learn whether the promised “accommodation” is actually in the works.

Of course, whatever the “accommodation” turns out to be, it will not be good enough. Religious organizations and religious communities will still be faced with this reality: the federal government has decided that it can and should define two classes of religious organizations, two kinds of religion, and two degrees of religious freedom. Churches, being inwardly oriented, get an exemption-full protection for their odd convictions and practices. All other religious organizations, being oriented outward in service and not only worship, are not exercising pure religion and thus only merit a lesser degree of religious freedom, only an “accommodation.” This deeply mistaken conception is the biggest problem caused by the contraceptives mandate.