Case: John Doe, et al. v. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, et al., No. 24-1015
Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2025-03-24
Status: Pending
Question Presented: (1) Whether compliance with state laws directly contrary to Title VII’s requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs may serve as an undue hardship justifying an employer’s noncompliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2) Whether a state law that requires employers to deny without any consideration all requests by employees for a religious accommodation, contrary to Title VII’s religious nondiscrimination provision, is preempted by Title VII and the S...
On December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in John Doe v. Hochul. That invitation, issued after the case had been distributed for conference eight separate times without action, signals that at least some Justices see a serious federal question here but want the executive branch’s position before deciding whether to grant certiorari. The Supreme Court docket reflects a petition that has drawn sustained attention across multiple conference cycles.
The underlying dispute involves petitioners who sought religious exemptions from a state law permitting no religious accommodations whatsoever. Petitioners, represented by Mathew D. Staver, argue that their employers used the state mandate as a shield, claiming compliance with state law constituted “undue hardship” under Title VII. Case background is available through CourtListener.
The two questions presented sit at the intersection of federal employment discrimination law and state authority. The first asks whether state law can supply the content of “undue hardship” under Title VII. The second asks whether a state law categorically foreclosing religious accommodation analysis is preempted outright. Eight conference distributions without a grant or denial suggest the Court is genuinely divided about whether to take the case.
The SG invitation adds meaningful weight to the petition. If the current administration files a brief supporting certiorari, the probability of a grant rises considerably. Practitioners in employment and religious liberty law should monitor the SG’s response closely.