In final scheduled summer order list, Supreme Court again declines to weigh in on COVID-19 vaccine mandate case
The Supreme Court on Friday morning once again declined to weigh in on a case brought by New York healthcare workers who were denied a religious accommodation from the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers and lost their jobs when they were not vaccinated. The denial of rehearing in Does 1-2 v. Hochul came as part of the third and final regularly scheduled list of summer orders . Summer order lists normally serve as a chance for the justices to clear out some of the pending requests for action – particularly petitions for rehearing – that build up between the end of June or early July, when they hold their final conference before their summer recess, and late September, when they return and hold the so-called “ long conference .” Although the court ordinarily does not add new cases to its merits docket on its summer order lists (as opposed to after the “long conference”), it sometimes opts to do so, as it did on July 20 , when it granted review in Jouppi v. Alaska . In Does 1-2 v. Hochul , the court denied the healthcare workers’ original petition for review on June 29, over a dissent by Justice Neil Gorsuch that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined. Gorsuch contended that the healthcare workers’ case “raises an important and recurring question of federal law that warrants this Court’s attention.” “I fail to see,” Gorsuch emphasized, “how a state law (especially an unconstitutional state law) prohibiting an accommodation can always and automatically supply an employer with a” defense that accommodating the employee’s religious observance or practice would place an “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. On July 23, the healthcare workers asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its denial of review. They argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, whose decision the Supreme Court had left in place, has continued to adhere to its position that “federal antidiscrimination claims must yield to contrary state statutory schemes.” Moreover, they added, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has also “adopted the framework that religious accommodations must yield to contrary state laws,” which exacerbates the division among federal appeals courts on this question – an important factor that the Supreme Court considers in deciding whether to grant review. On Friday, the court turned down the healthcare workers’ petition for reconsideration without asking New York Governor Kathy Hochul to respond. The justices will meet on Sept. 28 for their “ long conference ”; they are likely to issue an initial list of orders from that conference later that week.
SCOTUSblog•Amy Howe4 Sept
The Guardian•Dani Anguiano11 Sept
