Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

6 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
ALITO, J., concurring 

“demonstrates  that  application  of  the  burden  to  the  per-
son—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental in-
terest;  and (2)  is  the  least  restrictive  means of  furthering 
that  compelling  governmental  interest.”    §§2000bb–1(a)– 
(b).  Applying RFRA to the contraceptive mandate thus pre-
sents three questions.  First, would the mandate substan-
tially burden an employer’s exercise of religion?  Second, if 
the mandate would impose such a burden, would it never-
theless serve a “compelling interest”?  And third, if it serves 
such  an  interest,  would  it  represent  “the  least  restrictive 
means of furthering” that interest?
  Substantial burden.  Under our decision in Hobby Lobby, 
requiring  the  Little  Sisters  or  any  other  employer  with  a 
similar  religious  objection  to  comply  with  the  mandate 
would  impose  a  substantial  burden.  Our  analysis  of  this 
question in Hobby Lobby can be separated into two parts. 
First, would non-compliance have substantial adverse prac-
tical consequences?  573 U. S., at 720–723.  Second, would 
compliance cause the objecting party to violate its religious 
beliefs, as it sincerely understands them?  Id., at 723–726. 
The answer to the first question is indisputable.  If a cov-
ered  employer  does  not  comply  with  the  mandate  (by 
providing contraceptive coverage or invoking the accommo-
dation), it faces penalties of $100 per day for each of its em-
ployees.  26 U. S. C. §4980D(b)(1).  “And if the employer de-
cides to stop providing health insurance altogether and at 
least  one  full-time  employee  enrolls  in  a  health  plan  and 
qualifies for a subsidy on one of the government-run ACA 
exchanges, the employer must pay $2,000 per year for each 
of its full-time employees.  §§4980H(a), (c)(1).”  573 U. S., at 
697.  In Hobby Lobby, we found these “severe” financial con-
sequences sufficient to show that the practical effect of non-
compliance would be “substantial.”5  Id., at 720. 

—————— 
5 This  is  one  of  the  differences  between  these  cases  and  Bowen  v.  Roy,