Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 14

10 

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

Dept. of Labor, FAQs About Affordable Care Act Implemen-
tation Part 36, p. 4 (2017).  The Departments maintained
their position that the self-certification accommodation was 
consistent with RFRA because it did not impose a substan-
tial burden and, even if it did, it utilized the least restrictive 
means of achieving the Government’s interests.  Id., at 4– 
5. 

In 2017, the Departments tried yet again to comply with 
Zubik, this time by promulgating the two IFRs that served
as the impetus for this litigation.  The first IFR significantly 
broadened the definition of an exempt religious employer to 
encompass an employer that “objects . . . based on its sin-
cerely held religious beliefs,” “to its establishing, maintain-
ing, providing, offering, or arranging [for] coverage or pay-
ments for some or all contraceptive services.”  82 Fed. Reg. 
47812 (2017).  Among other things, this definition included
for-profit and publicly traded entities.  Because they were
exempt, these employers did not need to participate in the
accommodation  process,  which  nevertheless  remained 
available under the IFR.  Id., at 47806. 

As with their previous regulations, the Departments once 
again invoked §300gg–13(a)(4) as authority to promulgate
this  “religious  exemption,”  stating  that  it  “include[d]  the
ability to exempt entities from coverage requirements an-
nounced in HRSA’s Guidelines.”  Id., at 47794.  Addition-
ally,  the  Departments  announced  for  the  first  time  that
RFRA  compelled  the  creation  of,  or  at  least  provided  the 
discretion to create, the religious exemption.  Id., at 47800– 
47806.  As  the  Departments  explained:  “We  know  from 
Hobby  Lobby  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  accommodation, 
the contraceptive-coverage requirement imposes a substan-
tial burden on certain objecting employers.  We know from 
other lawsuits and public comments that many religious en-
tities have objections to complying with the [self-certification] 
accommodation based on their sincerely held religious be-
liefs.”  Id., at 47806.  The Departments “believe[d] that the