Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 28

24 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
Opinion of the Court 

the IFR complied with the APA’s requirements, this claim 
fails.13 

B 

Next, respondents contend that the 2018 final rules are 
procedurally  invalid  because  “nothing  in  the  record  sig-
nal[s]”  that  the  Departments  “maintained  an  open  mind
throughout the [post-promulgation] process.”  Brief for Re-
spondents 27.  As evidence for this claim, respondents point
to the fact that the final rules made only minor alterations
to the IFRs, leaving their substance unchanged.  The Third 
Circuit  applied  this  “open-mindedness”  test,  concluding 
that because the final rules were “virtually identical” to the 
IFRs,  the  Departments  lacked  the  requisite  “flexible  and 
open-minded  attitude”  when  they  promulgated  the  final 
rules.  930 F. 3d, at 569 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We  decline  to  evaluate  the  final  rules  under  the  open-
mindedness test.  We have repeatedly stated that the text
of  the  APA  provides  the  “ ‘maximum  procedural  require-
ments’ ” that an agency must follow in order to promulgate 
a  rule.  Perez,  575  U. S.,  at  100  (quoting  Vermont  Yankee 
Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc.,  435  U. S.  519,  524  (1978)).    Because  the  APA  “sets 
forth the full extent of judicial authority to review executive 
agency action for procedural correctness,” FCC v. Fox Tele-
vision Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 513 (2009), we have re-
peatedly  rejected  courts’  attempts  to  impose  “judge-made 
procedur[es]” in addition to the APA’s mandates, Perez, 575 
U. S.,  at  102;  see  also  Pension  Benefit  Guaranty  Corpora-
tion v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 654–655 (1990); Vermont 
Yankee, 435 U. S., at 549.  And like the procedures that we
have  held  invalid,  the  open-mindedness  test  violates  the 

—————— 

13 We note as well that the Departments promulgated many other IFRs
in addition to the three related to the contraceptive mandate.  See, e.g., 
75 Fed. Reg. 27122 (dependent coverage); id., at 34538  (grandfathered 
health plans); id., at 37188 (pre-existing conditions).