These cases implicate an issue with unique importance for local governments. In the present cases, the Court is asked to decide whether for-profit, closely held secular corporations may invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, to assert that they must not be required to comply with the federal government’s regulations implementing the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Although RFRA does not apply to state and local governments, RFRA is closely related to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Among other things, RLUIPA bars state and local governments from enforcing land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on “the religious exercise of a person” unless the government can point to a compelling interest. Because amici represent local governments whose land use decisions are subject to RLUIPA, amici have expertise in RLUIPA’s administration and an interest in ensuring that RLUIPA’s reach is not unwarrantedly expanded. That experience sheds light on an important issue in these cases: whether for-profit, secular corporations are “person(s)” who may invoke RFRA’s protections. RLUIPA and RFRA are sister statutes that use near identical language, and which courts have construed in tandem.