Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

22 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
Opinion of the Court 

. . .  court  filings  in  dozens  of  cases—encompassing  hun-
dreds of organizations.”  Id., at 47802; see also id., at 47806. 
If the Departments did not look to RFRA’s requirements or 
discuss RFRA at all when formulating their solution, they
would certainly be susceptible to claims that the rules were
arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider an important 
aspect of the problem.12  Thus, respondents’ argument that
the Departments erred by looking to RFRA as a guide when
framing the religious exemption is without merit. 

III 
Because we hold that the Departments had authority to
promulgate the exemptions, we must next decide whether 
the 2018 final rules are procedurally invalid.  Respondents
present two arguments on this score.  Neither is persuasive. 

A 
Unless  a  statutory  exception  applies,  the  APA  requires
agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 
Federal Register before promulgating a rule that has legal 
force.  See 5 U. S. C. §553(b).  Respondents point to the fact
that the 2018 final rules were preceded by a document en-
titled  “Interim  Final  Rules  with  Request  for  Comments,”
not a document entitled “General Notice of Proposed Rule-
making.”  They claim that since this was insufficient to sat-
isfy §553(b)’s requirement, the final rules were procedurally
invalid.  Respondents  are  incorrect.  Formal  labels  aside, 

—————— 

12 Here, too, the Departments have consistently taken the position that
their rules had to account for RFRA in response to comments that the 
rules would violate that statute.  See Dept. of Labor, FAQs About Afford-
able Care Act Implementation Part 36, pp. 4–5 (2017) (2016 Request for 
Information); 78 Fed. Reg. 39886–39887 (2013 rule); 77 Fed. Reg. 8729 
(2012 final rule).  As the 2017 IFR explained, the Departments simply
reached a different conclusion on whether the accommodation satisfied 
RFRA.  See 82 Fed. Reg. 47800–40806 (summarizing the previous ways
in which the Departments accounted for RFRA and providing a lengthy 
explanation for the changed position).