Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

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

2015); Priests for Life v. United States Dept. of Health and 
Human Servs., 772 F. 3d 229 (CADC 2014); Michigan Cath-
olic Conference v. Burwell, 755 F. 3d 372 (CA6 2014); Uni-
versity of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F. 3d 547 (CA7 2014); 
but  see  Sharpe  Holdings,  Inc.  v.  United  States  Dept.  of 
Health and Human Servs., 801 F. 3d 927 (CA8 2015); Dordt 
College v. Burwell, 801 F. 3d 946 (CA8 2015).  We granted
certiorari in cases from four Courts of Appeals to decide the 
RFRA question.  Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) 
(per curiam).  Ultimately, however, we opted to remand the
cases  without  deciding  that  question. 
In  supplemental 
briefing,  the  Government  had  “confirm[ed]”  that  “ ‘contra-
ceptive  coverage  could  be  provided  to  petitioners’  employ-
ees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any 
. . . notice from petitioners.’ ”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 3).  Pe-
titioners, for their part, had agreed that such an approach
would not violate their free exercise rights.  Ibid.  Accord-
ingly, because all parties had accepted that an alternative
approach was “feasible,” ibid., we directed the Government 
to  “accommodat[e]  petitioners’  religious  exercise  while  at 
the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ 
health plans receive full and equal health coverage, includ-
ing contraceptive coverage,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 4) (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). 

C 
Zubik  was  not  the  only  relevant  ruling  from  this  Court
about the contraceptive mandate.  As the Little Sisters and 
numerous  others  mounted  their  challenges  to  the  self-
certification  accommodation,  a  host  of  other  entities  chal-
lenged  the  contraceptive  mandate  itself  as  a  violation  of 
RFRA.  See, e.g., Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 
F. 3d  1114  (CA10  2013)  (en  banc);  Korte  v.  Sebelius,  735 
F. 3d  654  (CA7  2013);  Gilardi  v.  United  States  Dept.  of 
Health  and  Human  Servs.,  733  F. 3d  1208  (CADC  2013); 
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of U. S. Dept.