Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 46

16 

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

work for employers who have religious objections to the con-
traceptive  mandate  may  be  able  to  receive  contraceptive
coverage through a family member’s health insurance plan. 
In sum, the Departments were right to conclude that ap-
plying the accommodation to sincere religious objectors vi-
olates  RFRA.  See  id.,  at  57546.    All  three  prongs  of  the
RFRA  analysis—substantial  burden,  compelling  interest, 
and least restrictive means—necessitate this answer. 

III 
Once it was apparent that the accommodation ran afoul 
of RFRA, the Government was required to eliminate the vi-
olation.  RFRA does not specify the precise manner in which 
a violation must be remedied; it simply instructs the Gov-
ernment to avoid “substantially burden[ing]” the “exercise 
of religion”—i.e., to eliminate the violation.  §2000bb–1(a);
see also §2000bb–1(c) (providing for “appropriate relief ” in 
judicial suit).  Thus, in Hobby Lobby, once we held that ap-
plication  of  the  mandate  to  the  objecting  parties  violated 
RFRA, we left it to the Departments to decide how best to
rectify  this  problem.    See  573  U. S.,  at  736;  79  Fed.  Reg.
51118 (2014) (proposing to modify the accommodation to ex-
tend it to closely held corporations in light of Hobby Lobby);
80 Fed. Reg. 41324 (final rule explaining that “[t]he Depart-
ments believe that the definition adopted in these regula-
tions  complies  with  and  goes  beyond  what  is  required  by 
RFRA and Hobby Lobby”).

The  same  principle  applies  here.  Once  it  is  recognized 
that the prior accommodation violated RFRA in some of its
applications, it was incumbent on the Departments to elim-
inate those violations, and they had discretion in crafting 
what they regarded as the best solution. 

The solution they devised cures the problem, and it is not
clear that any narrower exemption would have been suffi-
cient with respect to parties with religious objections to the