Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

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

gress  provided  that  the  “[g]overnment  shall  not  substan-
tially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the bur-
den results from a rule of general applicability” unless “it 
demonstrates  that  application  of  the  burden  . . .  is  in  fur-
therance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is 
the  least  restrictive  means  of  furthering  that  compelling
governmental interest.”  §§2000bb–1(a)–(b).  Placing Con-
gress’ intent beyond dispute, RFRA specifies that it “applies
to  all  Federal  law,  and  the  implementation  of  that  law,
whether statutory or otherwise.”  §2000bb–3(a).  RFRA also 
permits Congress to exclude statutes from RFRA’s protec-
tions.  §2000bb–3(b). 

It is clear from the face of the statute that the contracep-
tive mandate is capable of violating RFRA.  The ACA does 
not  explicitly  exempt  RFRA,  and  the  regulations  imple-
menting  the  contraceptive  mandate  qualify  as  “Federal 
law”  or  “the  implementation  of  [Federal]  law.”    §2000bb–
3(a);  cf.  Chrysler  Corp.  v.  Brown,  441  U. S.  281,  297–298 
(1979).  Additionally, we expressly stated in Hobby Lobby
that the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA as applied 
to  entities with  complicity-based  objections.   573  U. S.,  at 
736.  Thus, the potential for conflict between the contracep-
tive mandate and RFRA is well settled.  Against this back-
drop,  it  is  unsurprising  that  RFRA  would  feature  promi-
nently  in  the  Departments’  discussion  of  exemptions  that
would not pose similar legal problems. 

Moreover,  our  decisions  all  but  instructed  the  Depart-
ments  to  consider  RFRA  going  forward.  For  instance, 
though we held that the mandate violated RFRA in Hobby 
Lobby, we left it to the Federal Government to develop and 
implement a solution.  At the same time, we made it abun-
dantly clear that, under RFRA, the Departments must ac-
cept  the  sincerely  held  complicity-based  objections  of  reli-
gious  entities.    That  is,  they  could  not  “tell  the  plaintiffs
that their beliefs are flawed” because, in the Departments’ 
view,  “the  connection  between  what  the  objecting  parties