The court is set to hear a case in April that could overturn an important part of the Affordable Care Act.
The Trump administration argues that the federal government cannot use its power to stop states from implementing protections that were included in the law.
The justices will hear arguments in a case called Friedrichs v.
California Teachers Association (FCA), which argues that if the court were to overturn the law, states would have a greater right to impose their own regulations on private employers than they have in the past.
The court has repeatedly rejected the idea that states have a constitutional right to set their own policies.
In 2015, the court upheld a federal law that required health plans to cover contraceptives.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the government had no authority to stop the use of contraception in the United States.
The government has also filed a brief in the case, saying that the contraceptive mandate is “a central plank of the government’s religious freedom law.”
But the Supreme Supreme Court has also made clear that it does not see it that way.
“Congress has no authority under the Constitution to require employers to pay for contraception or otherwise subject women to the consequences of their own free will,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 2014 ruling upholding the contraception mandate.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in April whether to take up the case.
While the court will hear oral arguments, it is expected that the justices will be forced to consider a separate case involving a federal rule that prevents employers from forcing their workers to buy insurance or pay higher premiums if they do not cover birth control.
The issue in that case is whether employers can require employees to pay a penalty if they choose not to buy the coverage.
The mandate was enacted by Congress after the Supreme College of American Universities and other groups sued the Obama administration over the requirement in 2014.
The administration argued that it was necessary to ensure that the employer had enough information about its employees to make an informed choice about whether or not to purchase the insurance.
A federal judge in July rejected the argument that the mandate violates the Constitution’s First Amendment right to freedom of association.
But the administration appealed that ruling to the Supreme War Crimes Court, which is currently considering whether the mandate constitutes a crime under the Criminal Code of the United Nations.
The two sides have a long history of disputes over contraception coverage.
In 2003, the Supreme Courts upheld the right of the Catholic bishops of the Archdiocese of Washington to force women to have unprotected sex, a case that is currently being heard by the Supreme court.
The Catholic Church opposes birth control, and many Catholic institutions and bishops have been pressuring the Obama White House to rescind the mandate.
If the court does rule that the contraception penalty is a crime, the impact would be particularly severe for low-income women and people of color.
The FCA argues that by imposing its mandate on the states, the government is violating the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by imposing an unconstitutional tax on people of low and middle income.
The 14th amendment says that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united States.”
In 2014, the administration argued in its brief that the tax was necessary because it was “the only means of providing adequate coverage to women in low- and middle-income families.”
The mandate, it said, would not allow for “a substantial expansion of coverage,” which would “lead to substantial price increases for women and families.”
A 2014 study by the conservative American Action Forum found that the FCA had spent $1.3 million fighting to prevent states from imposing the contraception requirement.
The law has been opposed by the National Right to Life Committee, the American Federation for Children and the National Women’s Law Center.
But other organizations, including the American Medical Association, the Catholic Bishops Conference and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bilingual Societies, all have said that the penalty is not discriminatory.