Lower Courts Backed the State
But both the trial court and the Second Circuit sided with the state. Accommodating the employees, the courts reasoned, would leave facilities in violation of state health mandates—exposing them to enforcement actions, penalties, or even jeopardizing their licenses. That threat alone, the Second Circuit held in late 2024, was enough to meet the “undue hardship” threshold.
In effect, the courts ruled that an employer cannot be forced to choose between honoring a worker’s faith and breaking state law.
A Supreme Court Vehicle for Bigger Change?
Experts note that the case has lingered at the high court for months despite closed briefing—an indication that the justices may be debating whether to use it as a vehicle to expand workplace protections for religious employees. Some legal observers suggest the Court could reshape how employers nationwide evaluate religious accommodation requests.
The petitioners are represented by Liberty Counsel attorneys Mathew D. Staver, Anita L. Staver, Horatio G. Mihet and Daniel J. Schmid.
New York’s defense team includes Attorney General Letitia James, state Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood, and attorneys Judith N. Vale and Mark S. Grube.
Healthcare providers are represented by counsel from Littler Mendelson PC, Garfunkel Wild PC, and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.
The Supreme Court’s next step will hinge on the federal government’s forthcoming brief—a filing that could set the stage for another blockbuster showdown over faith, public health, and the limits of government power.
