Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

for interested women to obtain seamless access to contraception with-
out cost-sharing cannot justify supplanting the text’s plain meaning. 
Even if such concerns are legitimate, they are more properly directed
at the regulatory mechanism that Congress put in place.  Pp. 14–18.

(b) Because  the  ACA  provided  a  basis  for  both  exemptions,  the 
Court need not decide whether RFRA independently compelled the De-
partments’  solution.    However,  the  argument  that  the  Departments
could not consider RFRA at all is without merit.  It is clear from the 
face of the statute that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violat-
ing RFRA.  The ACA does not explicitly exempt RFRA, and the regu-
lations  implementing  the  contraceptive  mandate  qualify  as  “Federal 
law” or “the implementation of [Federal] law” under RFRA.  §2000bb– 
3(a).  Additionally, this Court stated in Hobby Lobby that the mandate 
violated RFRA as applied to entities with complicity-based objections.
And both Hobby Lobby and Zubik instructed the Departments to con-
sider  RFRA  going  forward.    Moreover,  in  light  of  the  basic  require-
ments of the rulemaking process, the Departments’ failure to discuss 
RFRA  at  all  when  formulating  their  solution  would  make  them  sus-
ceptible to claims that the rules were arbitrary and capricious for fail-
ing to consider an important aspect of the problem.  Pp. 19–22. 

2. The rules promulgating the exemptions are free from procedural

defects.  Pp. 22–26. 

(a) Respondents claim that because the final rules were preceded
by  a  document  entitled  “Interim  Final  Rules  with  Request  for  Com-
ments” instead of “General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” they are 
procedurally invalid under the APA.  The IFRs’ request for comments 
readily  satisfied  the  APA  notice  requirements.    And  even  assuming
that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled “notice
of  proposed  rulemaking,”  there  was  no  “prejudicial  error”  here,  5 
U. S. C. §706.  Pp. 22–24.

(b) Pointing to the fact that the final rules made only minor alter-
ations to the IFRs, respondents also contend that the final rules are 
procedurally invalid because nothing in the record suggests that the 
Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation 
process.  The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA.  Each of 
the APA’s procedural requirements was satisfied: The IFRs provided
sufficient notice, §553(b); the Departments “g[a]ve interested persons
an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission 
of written data, views or arguments,” §553(c); the final rules contained
“a  concise  general  statement  of  their  basis  and  purpose,”  ibid.;  and 
they were published more than 30 days before they became effective, 
§553(d).  Pp. 24–26. 

930 F. 3d 543, reversed and remanded.