Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

must do . . . and the end that they find to be morally wrong 
. . . is simply too attenuated.”  Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 
723–724.  Likewise, though we did not decide whether the
self-certification accommodation ran afoul of RFRA in Zu-
bik, we directed the parties on remand to “accommodat[e]” 
the free exercise rights of those with complicity-based ob-
jections to the self-certification accommodation.  578 U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 4).  It is hard to see how the Departments 
could  promulgate  rules  consistent  with  these  decisions  if 
they  did  not  overtly  consider  these  entities’  rights  under 
RFRA. 

This is especially true in light of the basic requirements
of  the  rulemaking  process.    Our  precedents  require  final
rules to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for [the] ac-
tion including a rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.”  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United 
States,  Inc.  v.  State  Farm  Mut.  Automobile  Ins.  Co.,  463 
U. S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).  This 
requirement allows courts to assess whether the agency has 
promulgated an arbitrary and capricious rule by “entirely 
fail[ing] to consider an important aspect of the problem [or]
offer[ing] an explanation for its decision that runs counter
to  the  evidence  before  [it].”  Ibid.;  see  also  Department  of 
Commerce  v.  New  York,  588  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2019) 
(BREYER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (slip 
op., at 3–4); Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, 890 F. 3d 304, 307 
(CADC  2018);  Pacific  Coast  Federation  of  Fishermen’s 
Assns. v. United States Bur. of Reclamation, 426 F. 3d 1082, 
1094 (CA9 2005).  Here, the Departments were aware that 
Hobby Lobby held the mandate unlawful as applied to reli-
gious  entities  with  complicity-based  objections.    82  Fed. 
Reg.  47799;  83  Fed.  Reg.  57544–57545.    They  were  also 
aware  of  Zubik’s  instructions.  82  Fed.  Reg.  47799.    And, 
aside from our own decisions, the Departments were mind-
ful of the RFRA concerns raised in “public comments and