Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 40

10 

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

Thomas, 450 U. S., at 715, who refused to participate in the 
manufacture of tanks but did not object to assisting in the
production of steel used to make the tanks.  Where to draw 
the line in a chain of causation that leads to objectionable
conduct  is  a  difficult  moral  question,  and  our  cases  have
made it clear that courts cannot override the sincere reli-
gious  beliefs  of  an  objecting  party  on  that  question.  See 
Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 723–726; Thomas, 450 U. S., at 
715–716. 

For these reasons, the contraceptive mandate imposes a 
substantial burden on any employer who, like the Little Sis-
ters, has a sincere religious objection to the use of a listed 
contraceptive and a sincere religious belief that compliance
with  the  mandate  (through  the  accommodation  or  other-
wise) makes it complicit in the provision to the employer’s
workers of a contraceptive to which the employer has a re-
ligious objection. 
  Compelling  interest.  In  Hobby  Lobby,  the  Government 
asserted and we assumed for the sake of argument that the 
Government had a compelling interest in “ensuring that all
women  have  access  to  all  FDA-approved  contraceptives
without cost sharing.”  573 U. S., at 727.  Now, the Govern-
ment concedes that it lacks a compelling interest in provid-
ing such access, Reply Brief in No. 19–454, p. 10, and this 
time, the Government is correct. 

In order to show that it has a “compelling interest” within
the meaning of RFRA, the Government must clear a high
bar.  In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), the deci-
sion  that  provides  the  foundation  for  the  rule  codified  in 
RFRA, we said that “ ‘[o]nly the gravest abuses, endanger-
ing  paramount  interest’ ”  could  “ ‘give  occasion  for  [a]  per-
missible limitation’ ” on the free exercise of religion.  Id., at 
406.  Thus, in order to establish that it has a “compelling 
interest” in providing free contraceptives to all women, the 
Government would have to show that it would commit one 
of  “the  gravest  abuses”  of  its  responsibilities  if  it  did  not