Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 53

4 

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

U. S. C. §706(2)(A).  Because the courts below found for the 
States on the first question, they declined to reach the sec-
ond.  That issue is now ready for resolution, unaffected by
today’s decision.  An agency acting within its sphere of del-
egated authority can of course flunk the test of “reasoned 
decisionmaking.”    Michigan  v.  EPA,  576  U. S.  743,  750 
(2015).  The agency does so when it has not given “a satis-
factory  explanation  for  its  action”—when  it  has  failed  to
draw  a  “rational  connection”  between  the  problem  it  has
identified  and  the  solution  it  has  chosen,  or  when  its 
thought process reveals “a clear error of judgment.”  Motor 
Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. 
Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  Assessed against that standard of
reasonableness,  the  exemptions  HRSA  and  the  Depart-
ments issued give every appearance of coming up short.2 

Most striking is a mismatch between the scope of the re-
ligious exemption and the problem the agencies set out to
address.  In  the  Departments’  view,  the  exemption  was 
“necessary  to  expand  the  protections”  for  “certain  entities 
and  individuals”  with  “religious  objections”  to  contracep-
tion.  83 Fed. Reg. 57537 (2018).  Recall that under the old 
system, an employer objecting to the contraceptive mandate 
for religious reasons could avail itself of the “self-certifica-
tion accommodation.”  Ante, at 6.  Upon making the certifi-
cation,  the  employer  no  longer  had  “to  contract,  arrange, 
[or]  pay”  for  contraceptive  coverage;  instead,  its  insurer
would  bear  the  services’  cost.    78  Fed.  Reg.  39874  (2013).
That device dispelled some employers’ objections—but not 
all.  The Little Sisters, among others, maintained that the
accommodation  itself  made  them  complicit  in  providing 
contraception.  The measure thus failed to “assuage[ ]” their 

—————— 

2 I  speak  here  only  of  the  substantive  validity  of  the  exemptions.   
I 
agree  with  the  Court  that  the  final  rules  issuing  the  exemptions  were
procedurally valid.