Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 55

6 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment 

even as they sought  to protect employers with continuing 
religious objections.  But they failed to fulfill that commit-
ment to women.  Remember that the accommodation pre-
serves  employees’  access  to  cost-free  contraceptive  cover-
age, while the exemption does not.  See ante, at 5–6.  So the 
Departments  (again,  according  to  their  own  priorities)
should have exempted only employers who had religious ob-
jections to the accommodation—not those who viewed it as 
a religiously acceptable device for complying with the man-
date.  The Departments’ contrary decision to extend the ex-
emption to those without any religious need for it yielded 
all costs and no benefits.  Once again, that outcome is hard 
to  see  as  consistent  with  reasoned  judgment.    See  State 
Farm, 463 U. S., at 43.4 

Other  aspects  of  the  Departments’  handiwork  may  also
prove arbitrary and capricious.  For example, the Depart-
ments allow even publicly traded corporations to claim a re-
ligious  exemption.    See  83  Fed.  Reg.  57562–57563.    That 
option is unusual enough to raise a serious question about 
whether  the  Departments  adequately  supported  their 
choice.  Cf. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. 
682, 717 (2014) (noting the oddity of “a publicly traded cor-
poration  asserting  RFRA  rights”).    Similarly,  the  Depart-
ments offer an exemption to employers who have moral, ra-
ther  than  religious,  objections  to  the  contraceptive 
mandate.  Perhaps there are sufficient reasons for that de-
cision—for example, a desire to stay neutral between reli-
gion and non-religion.  See 83 Fed. Reg. 57603–57604.  But 

—————— 

4 In  a  brief  passage  in  the  interim  final  rule,  the  Departments  sug-
gested that an exemption is “more workable” than the accommodation in 
addressing religious objections to the mandate.  82 Fed. Reg. 47806.  But 
the Departments continue to provide the accommodation to any religious 
employers  who  request  that  option,  thus  maintaining  a  two-track  sys-
tem.  See ante, at 10; n. 3, supra.  So ease of administration cannot sup-
port, at least without more explanation, the Departments’ decision to of-
fer the exemption more broadly than needed.