Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 30

26 

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

ing rulemaking procedures.’ ”  Perez, 575 U. S., at 102 (quot-
ing  Vermont  Yankee,  435  U. S.,  at  524).    Accordingly,  re-
spondents’ second procedural challenge also fails.14 

* 

* 

* 
For  over  150  years,  the  Little  Sisters  have  engaged  in
faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious call-
ing to surrender all for the sake of their brother.  “[T]hey
commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the
unique,  inviolable  dignity  of  every  person,  particularly 
those  whom  others  regard  as  weak  or  worthless.”  Com-
plaint ¶14.  But for the past seven years, they—like many 
other religious objectors who have participated in the liti-
gation  and  rulemakings  leading  up  to  today’s  decision— 
have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble 
work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs. 
After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed reg-
ulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a 
solution that  exempts  the  Little  Sisters  from  the  source 
of  their  complicity-based  concerns—the  administratively
imposed contraceptive mandate. 

We  hold  today  that  the  Departments  had  the  statutory
authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contempo-
raneously  issued  moral  exemption.    We  further  hold  that 
the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from pro-
cedural defects.  Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals and remand the cases for further proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

14 Because  we  conclude  that  the  IFRs’  request  for  comment  satisfies 
the APA’s rulemaking requirements, we need not reach respondents’ ad-
ditional  argument  that  the  Departments  lacked  good  cause  to  promul-
gate the 2017 IFRs.