Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

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

17 

ALITO, J., concurring 

accommodation.  As  noted,  after  great  effort,  the  Govern-
ment concluded that it was not possible to solve the problem 
without using an “employer’s plan, issuer, or third party ad-
ministrator.”  83 Fed. Reg. 57546.  As a result, the Depart-
ments turned to the current rule, under which an objecting 
party  must  certify  that  it  “objects,  based  on  its  sincerely 
held  religious  beliefs,  to  its  establishing,  maintaining, 
providing, offering, or arranging for (as applicable)” either 
“[c]overage  or payments for some or all contraceptive ser-
vices” or “[a] plan, issuer, or third party administrator that
provides or arranges such coverage or payments.”  45 CFR 
§§147.132(a)(2)(i)–(ii).

The  States  take  exception  to  the  new  religious  rule  on 
several grounds.  First, they complain that it grants an ex-
emption  to  some  employers  who  were  satisfied  with  the
prior accommodation, but there is little basis for this argu-
ment.  An employer who is satisfied with the accommoda-
tion  may  continue  to  operate  under  that  regime.  See 
§§147.131(c)–(d); 83 Fed. Reg. 57569–57571.  And unless an 
employer has a religious objection to the accommodation, it
is unclear why an employer would give it up.  The accom-
modation does not impose any cost on an employer, and it 
provides an added benefit for the employer’s work force. 

The States also object to the new rule because it makes
exemptions  available  to  publicly  traded  corporations,  but
the Government is “not aware” of any publicly traded cor-
porations that object to compliance with the mandate.  Id., 
at  57562.  For  all  practical  purposes,  therefore,  it  is  not 
clear that the new rule’s provisions concerning entities that 
object to the mandate on religious grounds go any further 
than necessary to bring the mandate into compliance with
RFRA. 

In  any  event,  while  RFRA  requires  the  Government  to
employ the least restrictive means of furthering a compel-
ling  interest  that  burdens  religious  belief,  it  does  not  re-