Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 20

16 

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

the  same  capacious  grant  of  authority  that  empowers
HRSA  to  make  these  determinations  leaves  its  discretion 
equally  unchecked  in  other  areas,  including  the  ability  to
identify and create exemptions from its own Guidelines.

Congress  could  have  limited  HRSA’s  discretion  in  any
number of ways, but it chose not to do so.  See Ali v. Federal 
Bureau of Prisons, 552 U. S. 214, 227 (2008); see also Rot-
kiske  v.  Klemm,  589  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  6); 
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, 584 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2018) (slip op., at 16).  Instead, it enacted “ ‘expansive lan-
guage  offer[ing]  no  indication  whatever’ ”  that  the  statute 
limits  what  HRSA  can  designate  as  preventive  care  and 
screenings  or  who  must  provide  that  coverage.    Ali,  552 
U. S., at 219–220 (quoting Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 
446 U. S. 578, 589 (1980)).  “It is a fundamental principle of
statutory interpretation that ‘absent provision[s] cannot be 
supplied  by  the  courts.’ ”  Rotkiske,  589  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip 
op., at 5) (quoting A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The 
Interpretation of Legal Texts 94 (2012)); Nichols v. United 
States, 578 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 6).  This princi-
ple applies not only to adding terms not found in the stat-
ute,  but  also  to  imposing  limits  on  an  agency’s  discretion
that are not supported by the text.  See Watt v. Energy Ac-
tion Ed. Foundation, 454 U. S. 151, 168 (1981).  By intro-
ducing  a  limitation  not  found  in  the  statute,  respondents 
ask us to alter, rather than to interpret, the ACA.  See Nich-
ols, 578 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6). 

By its terms, the ACA leaves the Guidelines’ content to
the exclusive discretion of HRSA.  Under a plain reading of
the  statute,  then,  we  conclude  that  the  ACA  gives  HRSA
broad  discretion  to  define  preventive  care  and  screenings
and to create the religious and moral exemptions.7 

—————— 

7 Though not necessary for this analysis, our decisions in Zubik v. Bur-
well, 578 U. S. ___ (2016) (per curiam), and Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S. 682, 
implicitly support the conclusion that §300gg–13(a)(4) empowered HRSA