Also, of particular interest to the court was the question raised in an amicus brief of conscientious objection suggesting that courts may not usurp the right of religious adherents to determine their own views regarding moral complicity. On May 16, 2016, the Court issued a per curiam decision that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the cases to those courts for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs". Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues". In a departure from the usual treatment of per curiam rulings, Chief Justice Roberts read the ruling aloud in court. The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case. She cited as an example the Eighth Circuit opinion in "Sharpe Holdings", the only Court of Appeals decision that had upheld the position taken by the "Zubik" plaintiffs. On May 23 the Supreme Court returned two additional cases back to their respective Courts of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the filings in "Zubik": "Catholic Healthcare System v. Burwell" (Second Circuit Court of Appeals) and "Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell" (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals). On July 21 the Obama administration asked the Courts of Appeals considering the "Zubik" cases to allow 65 days for the government to seek advice from third parties on all aspects of the legal dispute, from technical and practical implementation issues to religious and legal insight. It published a general appeal for comment and advice from "all interested stakeholders" in the "Federal Register" the next day.