Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-431_5i36.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

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

1 

 KAGAN, J., concurring
KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment 

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 KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins, con-

curring in the judgment. 

I  would  uphold  HRSA’s  statutory  authority  to  exempt 
certain  employers  from  the  contraceptive-coverage  man-
date, but for different reasons than the Court gives.  I also 
write  separately  because  I  question  whether  the  exemp-
tions can survive administrative law’s demand for reasoned 
decisionmaking.    That  issue  remains  open  for  the  lower 
courts to address. 

The majority and dissent dispute the breadth of the dele-
gation in the Women’s Health Amendment to the ACA.  The 
Amendment states that a health plan or insurer must offer 
coverage  for  “preventive  care  and  screenings  . . .  as  pro-
vided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by [HRSA] 
for  purposes  of  this  paragraph.”    42  U. S. C.  §300gg– 
13(a)(4).  The  disputed  question  is  just  what  HRSA  can 
“provide for.”  Both the majority and the dissent agree that