This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioners were represented by Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco and Paul D. Clement; the respondents were represented by Michael J. Fischer.
According to General Noel J. Francisco, petitioners argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) authorizes a religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate.
According to General FRANCISCO, petitioners also contend that the exemption is justified under Section 13(a)(4) of the ACA.
According to Respondents, respondents assert that they rely on authority under 300gg‑13 and the ACA’s women’s health amendment for a moral exemption, not on RFRA.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Thomas asked about the standing of the states and the proliferation of nationwide injunctions.
According to Justice KAGAN, justice Kagan questioned the consistency of the petitioners’ objection to objecting and its implications.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh followed up on the “least restrictive alternative” prong of RFRA.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer raised concerns about ambiguity in the statute regarding preventive care guidelines.
Justice Alito asked whether the ACA permits any exemptions for religious objections.
What each side argues
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home (Petitioner)
According to General Noel J. Francisco, the petitioners argue that RFRA at minimum authorizes the religious exemption and prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on religious beliefs.
According to General FRANCISCO, they further argue that the exemption is justified under Section 13(a)(4) of the ACA.
Pennsylvania (Respondent)
The respondents claim authority under 300gg‑13 and the ACA’s women’s health amendment for a moral exemption, not relying on RFRA.
Donald J. Trump, President (Petitioner)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Appearances included Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco and Paul D. Clement for the petitioners, and Michael J. Fischer for the respondents.
Justice Thomas asked about the standing of the states and the proliferation of nationwide injunctions.
According to Justice KAGAN, justice Kagan questioned the consistency of the petitioners’ objection to objecting.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh followed up on the “least restrictive alternative” prong of RFRA.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts raised a hypothetical scenario from an amicus brief.
Justice Breyer asked why the petitioners did not argue that the agency action was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion given statutory ambiguity.
Justice Alito asked whether the Affordable Care Act allows any exemptions for religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.
- [1] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 32
- [3] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 43
- [4] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 49
- [5] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 54
- [6] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 65
- [7] 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdf, p. 68
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 95fdb65e462208547273-r1-212ca54b744692a8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.