Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

Cite as:  573 U. S. ____ (2014) 

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Court  has  no  business  rewriting  administrative  regula-
tions.  Yet, without pause, the Court essentially does just 
that.6 

It is unclear why the Court goes to the lengths it does to
rewrite HHS’s regulations.  Presumably the Court intends
to  leave  to  the  agency  the  task  of  forwarding  whatever
notification  it  receives  to  the  respective  insurer  or  third-
party administrator.  But the Court does not even require
the religious nonprofit to identify its third-party adminis-
trator,  and  it  neglects  to  explain  how  HHS  is  to  identify
that entity.  Of course, HHS is aware of Wheaton’s third-
party  administrator  in  this  case.    But  what  about  other 
cases?  Does the Court intend for HHS to rely on the filing
of  lawsuits  by  every  entity  claiming  an  exemption,  such
that  the  identity  of  the  third-party  administrator  will
emerge in the pleadings or in discovery?  Is HHS to under-
take  the  daunting—if  not  impossible—task  of  creating  a
database  that  tracks  every  employer’s  insurer  or  third-

—————— 

6 This case is crucially unlike Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, 571 
U. S. ___ (2014).  There, the Court issued a comparable order “based on
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case”—in  particular,  the  fact  that  the 
applicants’  third-party  administrator  was  a  “church  plan”  that  had  no
legal  obligation  or  intention  to  provide  contraceptive  coverage.    See 
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, 2013 WL 6839900, *10–*11, *13 (D 
Colo.,  Dec.  27,  2013).    As  a  consequence,  whatever  the  merits  of  that
unusual order, it did not affect any individual’s access to contraceptive 
coverage.  Not so here.  Wheaton’s third-party administrator bears the 
legal obligation to provide contraceptive coverage only upon receipt of a 
valid  self-certification.    See  26  CFR  §54.9815–2713A(b)(2)  (2013);  29
CFR  §2510.3–16(b)  (2013).    Today’s  injunction  thus  risks  depriving
hundreds  of  Wheaton’s  employees  and  students  of  their  legal  entitle-
ment  to  contraceptive  coverage.    In  addition,  because  Wheaton  is 
materially  indistinguishable  from  other  nonprofits  that  object  to  the
Government’s accommodation, the issuance of an injunction in this case
will presumably entitle hundreds or thousands of other objectors to the 
same  remedy.    The  Court  has  no  reason  to  think  that  the  administra-
tive  scheme  it  foists  on  the  Government  today  is  workable  or  effective
on a national scale.