Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

Court’s analysis in Hobby Lobby extends, for the purposes
of analyzing a substantial burden, to the burdens that an
entity faces when it religiously opposes participating in the 
[self-certification] accommodation process.”  Id., at 47800. 
They thus “conclude[d] that it [was] appropriate to expand 
the exemption to other . . . organizations with sincerely held 
religious beliefs opposed to contraceptive coverage.”  Id., at 
47802; see also id., at 47810–47811. 

The second IFR created a similar “moral exemption” for 
employers—including  nonprofits  and  for-profits  with  no
publicly  traded  components—with  “sincerely  held  moral” 
objections  to  providing  some  or  all  forms  of  contraceptive 
coverage.  Id., at 47850, 47861–47862.  Citing congressional
enactments,  precedents  from  this  Court,  agency  practice, 
and state laws that provided for conscience protections, id., 
at 47844–47847, the Departments invoked their authority
under the ACA to create this exemption, id., at 47844.  The 
Departments  requested  post-promulgation  comments  on 
both IFRs.  Id., at 47813, 47854. 

E 
Within a week of the 2017 IFRs’ promulgation, the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania filed an action seeking declar-
atory and injunctive relief.  Among other claims, it alleged
that the IFRs were procedurally and substantively invalid 
under the APA.  The District Court held that the Common-
wealth was likely to succeed on both claims and granted a 
preliminary nationwide injunction against the IFRs.  The 
Federal Government appealed.

While that appeal was pending, the Departments issued 
rules  finalizing  the  2017  IFRs.    See  83  Fed.  Reg.  57536 
(2018);  83  Fed.  Reg.  57592,  codified  at  45  CFR  pt.  147 
(2018).  Though the final rules left the exemptions largely
intact, they also responded to post-promulgation comments, 
explaining their reasons for neither narrowing nor expand-
ing  the  exemptions  beyond  what  was  provided  for  in  the