Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

15 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

(“[T]he  parties  on  remand  should  be  afforded  an  oppor-
tunity to arrive at an approach . . . that accommodates pe-
titioners’ religious exercise while . . . ensuring that women
covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal 
health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.” (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted)); Wheaton College v. Burwell, 
573  U. S.  958,  959  (2014)  (“Nothing  in  this  interim  order 
affects the ability of applicant’s employees and students to
obtain, without cost, the full range of [FDA] approved con-
traceptives.”);  Hobby  Lobby,  573 U. S.,  at  692  (“There  are 
other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure 
that  every  woman  has  cost-free  access  to  . . .  all  [FDA]-
approved contraceptives.  In fact, HHS has already devised 
and  implemented  a  system  that  seeks  to  respect  the  reli-
gious  liberty  of  religious  nonprofit  corporations  while  en-
suring that the employees of these entities have precisely 
the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as em-
ployees of [other] companies.”).

The  assumption  made  in  the  above-cited  cases  rests  on
the basic principle just stated, one on which this dissent re-
lies: While the Government may “accommodate religion be-
yond free exercise requirements,” Cutter, 544 U. S., at 713, 
when it does so, it may not benefit religious adherents at 
the expense of the rights of third parties.  See, e.g., id., at 
722 (“[A]n accommodation must be measured so that it does
not override other significant interests.”); Caldor, 472 U. S., 
at 710 (religious exemption was invalid for its “unyielding 
weighting in favor of ” interests of religious adherents “over
all  other  interests”).  Holding  otherwise  would  endorse
“the regulatory equivalent of taxing non-adherents to sup-
port the faithful.”  Brief for Church-State Scholars as Amici 
Curiae 3. 

The expansive religious exemption at issue here imposes 
significant burdens on women employees.  Between 70,500 

2