Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

18 

LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR SAINTS PETER 
AND PAUL HOME v. PENNSYLVANIA 
GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

B 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey advance an additional ar-
gument:  The  exemption  is  not  authorized  by  RFRA,  they 
maintain,  because  the  self-certification  accommodation  it 
replaced was sufficient to alleviate any substantial burden
on religious exercise.  Brief for Respondents 36–42.  That 
accommodation, I agree, further indicates the religious ex-
emption’s flaws. 

1 
For  years,  religious  organizations  have  challenged  the
self-certification accommodation as insufficiently protective
of their religious rights.  See, e.g., Zubik, 578 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 3).  While I do not doubt the sincerity of these
organizations’  opposition  to  that  accommodation,  Hobby 
Lobby, 573 U. S., at 758–759 (GINSBURG. J., dissenting), I 
agree with Pennsylvania and New Jersey that the accom-
modation does not substantially burden objectors’ religious 
exercise. 

As Senator Hatch observed, “[RFRA] does not require the
Government to justify every action that has some effect on
religious exercise.”  139 Cong. Rec. 26180 (1993).  Bowen v. 
Roy,  476  U. S.  693  (1986),  is  instructive  in  this  regard.
There,  a  Native  American  father  asserted  a  sincere  reli-
gious belief that his daughter’s spirit would be harmed by
the Government’s use of her social security number.  Id., at 
697. The Court, while casting no doubt on the sincerity of 
this religious belief, explained: 

“Never to our knowledge has the Court interpreted the
First Amendment to require the Government itself to 
behave in ways that the individual believes will further
his  or  her  spiritual  development  or  that  of  his  or  her
family.  The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be un-
derstood to require the Government to conduct its own 
internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious