Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

appeals were consolidated with the previous appeal, which 
had been stayed.

The Third Circuit affirmed.  In its view, the Departments 
lacked authority to craft the exemptions under either stat-
ute.  The Third Circuit read 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4) as
empowering HRSA to determine which services should be
included as preventive care and screenings, but not to carve
out exemptions from those requirements.  It also concluded 
that RFRA did not compel or permit the religious exemption
because,  under  Third  Circuit  precedent  that  was  vacated 
and  remanded  in  Zubik,  the  Third  Circuit  had  concluded 
that the self-certification accommodation did not impose a 
substantial  burden  on  free  exercise.  As  for  respondents’ 
procedural  claim,  the  court  held  that  the  Departments
lacked  good  cause  to  bypass  notice  and  comment  when
promulgating the 2017 IFRs.  In addition, the court deter-
mined that, because the IFRs and final rules were “virtually 
identical,” “[t]he notice and comment exercise surrounding
the Final Rules [did] not reflect any real open-mindedness.” 
Pennsylvania v. President of United States, 930 F. 3d 543, 
568–569  (2019).  Though  it  rebuked  the  Departments  for
their  purported  attitudinal  deficiencies,  the  Third  Circuit
did not identify any specific public comments to which the
agency  did  not  appropriately  respond.    Id.,  at  569,  n. 24.6 

—————— 
the 2017 religious-exemption IFR, but the District Court denied that mo-
tion.  The Third Circuit reversed.  After that reversal, the Little Sisters 
appealed  the  District  Court’s  preliminary  injunction  of  the  2017  IFRs, 
and that appeal was consolidated with the Federal Government’s appeal. 
6 The Third Circuit also determined sua sponte that the Little Sisters 
lacked appellate standing to intervene because a District Court in Colo-
rado had permanently enjoined the contraceptive mandate as applied to 
plans in which the Little Sisters participate.  This was error.  Under our 
precedents, at least one party must demonstrate Article III standing for 
each claim for relief.  An intervenor of right must independently demon-
strate Article III standing if it pursues relief that is broader than or dif-
ferent from the party invoking a court’s jurisdiction.  See Town of Chester 
v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 6).  Here, the