Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

2 

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

Act (APA) by failing to provide notice of proposed rulemak-
ing, and (4) that the final rule creating the current exemp-
tions is invalid because the Departments did not have an
open  mind  when  they  considered  comments  to  the  rule. 
Based on this analysis, the Court of Appeals affirmed the 
nationwide injunction issued by the District Court. 

This  Court  now  concludes  that  all  the  holdings  listed 
above were erroneous, and I join the opinion of the Court in
full.  We  now  send  these  cases  back  to  the  lower  courts, 
where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of
New  Jersey  are  all  but  certain  to  pursue  their  argument
that  the  current  rule  is  flawed  on  yet  another  ground,
namely, that it is arbitrary and capricious and thus violates
the  APA.  This  will  prolong  the  legal  battle  in  which  the 
Little Sisters have now been engaged for seven years—even
though during all this time no employee of the Little Sisters 
has  come  forward  with  an  objection  to  the  Little  Sisters’ 
conduct. 

I understand the Court’s desire to decide no more than is 
strictly  necessary,  but  under  the  circumstances  here,  I 
would decide one additional question: whether the Court of 
Appeals erred in holding that the Religious Freedom Resto-
ration  Act  (RFRA),  42  U. S. C.  §§2000bb–2000bb–4,  does
not compel the religious exemption granted by the current 
rule.  If  RFRA  requires  this  exemption,  the  Departments 
did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in grant-
ing it.  And in my judgment, RFRA compels an exemption 
for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar 
objection to what has been called the accommodation to the 
contraceptive mandate. 

I 
Because the contraceptive mandate has been repeatedly
modified, a brief recapitulation of this history may be help-
ful.  The  ACA  itself  did  not  require  that  insurance  plans