Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 78

22 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

inal administrative regulation accommodating religious ob-
jections  to  contraception  appropriately  implemented  the
ACA and RFRA consistent with Congress’ staunch determi-
nation to afford women employees equal access to preven-
tive services, thereby advancing public health and welfare 
and women’s well-being.  I would therefore affirm the judg-
ment of the Court of Appeals.28 

—————— 
procedurally invalid.  See ante, at 22–26 (opinion of the Court). 

28 Although the Court does not reach the issue, the District Court did 
not abuse its discretion in issuing a nationwide injunction.  The Admin-
istrative  Procedure  Act  contemplates  nationwide  relief  from  invalid 
agency action.  See 5 U. S. C. §706(2) (empowering courts to “hold unlaw-
ful and set aside agency action”).  Moreover, the nationwide reach of the 
injunction “was ‘necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.’ ” 
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. ___, ___, n. 15 (2018) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dis-
senting) (slip op., at 25, n. 13) (quoting Madsen v. Women's Health Cen-
ter,  Inc.,  512  U. S.  753,  765  (1994)).    Harm  to  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey, the Court of Appeals explained, occurs because women who lose 
benefits under the exemption “will turn to state-funded services for their 
contraceptive needs and for the unintended pregnancies that may result 
from the loss of coverage.”  930 F. 3d, at 562.  This harm is not bounded 
by  state  lines.  The  Court  of  Appeals  noted,  for  example,  that  some
800,000 residents of Pennsylvania and New Jersey work—and thus re-
ceive their health insurance—out of State.  Id., at 576.  Similarly, many
students who attend colleges and universities in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey  receive  their  health  insurance  from  their  parents’  out-of-state 
health plans.  Ibid.