While the nation’s attention is on Tuesday’s midterm elections, the Supreme Court will consider further expanding the role of religion in American life.

Catholic schools in Colorado say the state violated their rights by making them comply with nondiscrimination rules if they want to partake in the state’s universal preschool program.

They’re making their case to a sympathetic court that is poised to be skeptical of the state, whose officials say they are simply enforcing standards that apply to everyone. That includes not discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In recent years, the court’s GOP-appointed majority has favored claims that officials have violated the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. It has been less enthusiastic about enforcing the amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion. Colorado in particular has lost a string of Supreme Court cases involving religion brought by conservative plaintiffs.

It is therefore the Catholic petitioners’ case to lose when they press their appeal on Tuesday morning in Washington. The outcome has nationwide implications.

They want the justices to reverse a ruling from the Denver-based appeals court that sided with Colorado. Writing for that court, Biden-appointed Judge Richard Federico noted the Supreme Court has said that if a state chooses to subsidize private education, then it can’t categorically withhold funds from religious institutions. But Federico said this case is different because Colorado officials didn’t exclude faith-based schools.

“Indeed, they welcomed and actively solicited their participation,” the appellate judge wrote, adding that the “only relevant limitation on any preschool’s participation is the nondiscrimination requirement, which applies to all preschools regardless of whether they are religious or secular.”Yet in a brief filed ahead of the hearing, the Catholic petitioners argued that the appeals court contorted the First Amendment’s free exercise protections.

“That reconceived Free Exercise Clause flies in the face of this Court’s precedent and offers little comfort to religious people, who suffer the same burden whether government openly singles out religion or not,” they wrote to the justices.

In its own court filing, Colorado insisted that it takes all comers but “requires all preschools — secular and religious alike — to deliver publicly-funded services without excluding families based on protected-class status.”

The Trump administration is among the outside parties supporting the petitioners. Also backing them are Republican-led states that warned the justices that the “ripple effects” of siding with Colorado would extend beyond education, letting states “weaponize the same tactic against any religious organization that receives government funding for any public benefit program.”

Colorado’s backers include Democratic-led states that worry about upending the private partnerships they use to deliver childcare and early education. The blue states told the justices that they want to ensure that private parties that provide government services don’t discriminate based on legally protected status. They said that adopting the “sweeping” position advanced by the petitioners “would require states to rethink how — and even whether — they could continue to partner with private providers while still enforcing minimum standards.”

The justices’ questions and comments to the lawyers at the hearing, which is set to start at 10 a.m. ET, could indicate how a majority of the court is leaning. A top Justice Department lawyer, Sarah Harris, will argue alongside the petitioners’ lawyer, Nicholas Reaves of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Colorado Deputy Solicitor General Helen Norton will argue for the state.

A ruling in the case, called St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, is expected by July, when the court typically breaks for the summer after handing down the final decisions in cases argued during the term.

for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.