Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–431 and 19–454 
_________________ 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER  
AND PAUL HOME, PETITIONER 
v. 
PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 

19–431 

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 

19–454 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

[July 8, 2020]

 JUSTICE  ALITO,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins, 

concurring. 

In  these  cases,  the  Court  of  Appeals  held,  among  other 
things, (1) that the Little Sisters of the Poor lacked stand-
ing to appeal, (2) that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does 
not permit any exemptions from the so-called contraceptive 
mandate, (3) that the Departments responsible for issuing
the challenged rule1 violated the Administrative Procedure 

—————— 

1 The  Health  Resources  and Services  Administration  (HRSA),  a  divi-
sion of the Department of Health and Human Services, creates the “com-
prehensive guidelines” on “coverage” for “additional preventive care and 
screenings”  for  women,  42  U. S. C.  §300gg–13(a)(4),  but  the  statute  is
jointly administered and enforced by the Departments of Health and Hu-
man  Services,  Labor,  and  Treasury  (collectively  Departments),  see 
§300gg–92;  29  U. S. C.  §1191c;  26  U. S. C.  §9833.    The  Departments
promulgated the exemptions at issue here, which were subsequently in-
corporated into the guidelines by HRSA.  See 83 Fed. Reg. 57536 (2018); 
id., at 57592.