Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 39

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

ALITO, J., concurring 

or obligation to provide or procure the objectionable cover-
age  for  [their]  plan  beneficiaries.”8    Second,  they  also  ob-
jected to submission of the self-certification form required
by  the  accommodation  because  without  that  certification 
their plan could not be used to provide contraceptive cover-
age.9    At  bottom,  then,  the  Government  and  the  religious 
objectors  disagreed  about  the  relationship  between  what
the accommodation demanded and the provision of contra-
ceptive coverage. 
  Our remand in Zubik put these two conflicting interpre-
tations to the test.  In response to our request for supple-
mental briefing, petitioners explained their position in the 
following  terms.  “[T]heir  religious  exercise” would  not  be
“infringed” if they did not have to do anything “ ‘more than 
contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some 
or  all  forms  of  contraception,’  even  if  their  employees  re-
ceive[d] cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same in-
surance company.”  578 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3).  At the 
time, the Government thought that it might be possible to 
achieve this result under the ACA, ibid., but subsequent at-
tempts to find a way to do this failed.  After great effort, the 
Government was forced to conclude that it was “not aware 
of the authority, or of a practical mechanism,” for providing 
contraceptive  coverage  “specifically  to  persons  covered  by
an objecting employer, other than by using the employer’s
plan,  issuer,  or  third  party  administrator.”    83  Fed.  Reg.
57545–57546. 

The  inescapable  bottom  line  is  that  the  accommodation 
demanded that parties like the Little Sisters engage in con-
duct that was a necessary cause of the ultimate conduct to
which they had strong religious objections.  Their situation 
was  the  same  as  that  of  the  conscientious  objector  in 
—————— 

8 Brief for Petitioners in Zubik v. Burwell, O. T. 2015, Nos. 14–1418, 

14–1453, 14–1505, p. 49. 

9 Brief  for  Petitioners  in  Zubik,  O.  T.  2015,  Nos.  15–35,  15–105,  15– 

119, 15–191, at 44.