Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

They feel called by their faith to care for their elderly resi-
dents  regardless  of  “faith,  finances,  or  frailty.”  Brief  for 
Residents and Families of Residents at Homes of the Little 
Sisters of the Poor as Amici Curiae 14.  The Little Sisters 
endeavor  to  treat  all  residents 
“as  if  they  were  Jesus
[Christ] himself, cared for as family, and treated with dig-
nity until God calls them to his home.”  Complaint ¶14 in 
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colo. v. 
Sebelius, No. 1:13–cv–02611 (D Colo.), p. 5 (Complaint). 

Consistent  with  their  Catholic  faith,  the  Little  Sisters 
hold the religious conviction “that deliberately avoiding re-
production through medical means is immoral.”  Little Sis-
ters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colo. v. Burwell, 
794 F. 3d 1151, 1167 (CA10 2015).  They challenged the self-
certification  accommodation,  claiming  that  completing  the 
certification form would force them to violate their religious
beliefs by “tak[ing] actions that directly cause others to pro-
vide contraception or appear to participate in the Depart-
ments’ delivery scheme.”  Id., at 1168.  As a result, they al-
leged  that  the  self-certification  accommodation  violated 
RFRA.  Under RFRA, a law that substantially burdens the 
exercise of religion must serve “a compelling governmental 
interest” and be “the least restrictive means of furthering
that  compelling governmental interest.”  §§2000bb–1(a)–(b). 
The Court of Appeals disagreed that the self-certification 
accommodation  substantially  burdened  the  Little  Sisters’ 
free  exercise  rights  and  thus  rejected  their  RFRA  claim. 
Little Sisters, 794 F. 3d, at 1160. 

The  Little  Sisters  were  far  from  alone  in  raising  RFRA 
challenges  to  the  self-certification  accommodation.    Reli-
gious nonprofit organizations and educational institutions
across  the  country  filed  a  spate  of  similar  lawsuits,  most
resulting in rulings that the accommodation did not violate
RFRA.  See, e.g., East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, 793 
F. 3d  449  (CA5  2015);  Geneva  College  v.  Secretary,  U. S. 
Dept.  of  Health  and  Human  Servs.,  778  F. 3d  422  (CA3