Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 70

14 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

rule of general applicability,” unless doing so “is the least 
restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmen-
tal interest.”  42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a), (b). 

A 
1 
The parties here agree that federal agencies may craft ac-
commodations and exemptions to cure violations of RFRA.
See, e.g., Brief for Respondents 36.17  But that authority is
not  unbounded.  Cutter  v.  Wilkinson,  544  U. S.  709,  720 
(2005)  (construing  Religious  Land  Use  and  Institutional-
ized  Persons  Act  of  2000,  the  Court  cautioned  that  “ade-
quate account” must be taken of “the burdens a requested
accommodation  may  impose  on  nonbeneficiaries”  of  the 
Act); Caldor, 472 U. S., at 708–710 (invalidating state stat-
ute requiring employers to accommodate an employee’s re-
ligious observance for failure to take into account the bur-
den such an accommodation would impose on the employer
and other employees).  “[O]ne person’s right to free exercise
must be kept in harmony with the rights of her fellow citi-
zens.”  Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 765, n. 25 (GINSBURG, J., 
dissenting).  See also id., at 746 (“[Y]our right to swing your 
arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” (quoting
Chafee, Freedom of Speech in War Time, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 
932, 957 (1919))).

In this light, the Court has repeatedly assumed that any
religious accommodation to the contraceptive-coverage re-
quirement  would  preserve  women’s  continued  access  to 
seamless, no-cost contraceptive coverage.  See Zubik v. Bur-
well, 578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (per curiam) (slip op., at 4) 

—————— 

17 But  see,  e.g.,  Brief  for  Professors  of  Criminal  Law  et al.  as  Amici 
Curiae 8–11 (RFRA does not grant agencies independent rulemaking au-
thority;  instead,  laws  allegedly  violating  RFRA  must  be  challenged  in
court).  No party argues that agencies can act to cure violations of RFRA 
only after a court has found a RFRA violation, and this opinion does not 
adopt any such view.