Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 12

12 

WHEATON COLLEGE v. BURWELL 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

‘trigger’  the  drafting  of  a  replacement  who  was  not  a
conscientious  objector,  and  that  the  Religious  Free-
dom Restoration Act would require a draft exemption 
for  both  the  Quaker  and  his  non‐Quaker  replace-
ment?”  Notre Dame, 743 F. 3d, at 556. 

Here,  similarly,  the  filing  of  the  self-certification  form 
merely  indicates  to  the  third-party  administrator  that  a
religious  nonprofit  has  chosen  to  invoke  the  religious
accommodation.  If a religious nonprofit chooses not to pay
for contraceptive services, it is true that someone else may 
have  a  legal  obligation  to  pay  for  them,  just  as  someone
may have to go to war in place of the conscientious objec-
tor.  But  the  obligation  to  provide  contraceptive  services, 
like the obligation to serve in the Armed Forces, arises not 
from  the  filing  of  the  form  but  from  the  underlying  law 
and regulations.

It  may  be  that  what  troubles  Wheaton  is  that  it  must 
participate in any process the end result of which might be 
the provision of contraceptives to its employees.  But that 
is  far  from  a  substantial  burden  on  its  free  exercise  of 
religion.

Even  if  one  were  to  conclude  that  Wheaton  meets  the 
substantial  burden  requirement,  the  Government  has 
shown that application of the burden is “the least restric-
tive  means”  to  further  a  “compelling  governmental  inter-
est,”  §2000bb–1(b)(2).  The  contraceptive  coverage  re-
quirement  plainly  furthers  compelling  interests  in  public
health and women’s well-being.  See Hobby Lobby, ante, at 
2 (KENNEDY, J. concurring).  And it is the “least restrictive 
means” of furthering those interests.  Indeed, as justifica-
tion  for  its  decision  in  Hobby  Lobby—issued  just  this
week—the  very  Members  of  the  Court  that  now  vote  to
grant  injunctive  relief  concluded  that  the  accommodation 
“constitutes  an  alternative  that  achieves  all  of  the  Gov-
ernment’s  aims  while  providing  greater  respect  for  reli-