Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reconsider Liberty Counsel’s petition for rehearing in Does 1-2 v. Hochul, a case where three New York health care workers were fired for refusing to take the COVID shot due to their deeply held religious convictions.

Liberty Counsel will seek to amend the complaint in the federal court of the U.S. Eastern District of New York, which originally dismissed the case.

The petition argued that the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals set a dangerous precedent by allowing a New York law to force health care employers to deny every employee’s religious accommodation request in violation of federal Title VII religious discrimination law.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, in which Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented, the same Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the state of New York to force Amish children to be vaccinated in order to attend their own Amish schools. This decision rejected prior instruction from the Supreme Court to consider precedents favoring religious rights. The rehearing petition further notes there is a deepening conflict among the federal circuit courts. 

Liberty Counsel represents health care workers against Governor Kathy Hochul, Department of Health Commissioner James McDonald, Trinity Health, Inc., New York Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., and Westchester Medical Center Advanced Physician Services, P.C. In this case, New York’s COVID-19 mandate required that state employers force employees to get the COVID-19 shot, but unlawfully denied religious exemptions while approving nonreligious medical exemptions.  

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “It is disappointing that the majority of Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to hear any cases involving COVID-19 shot mandates. As three dissenting Justices noted, this case raises important and recurring issues that deserve the High Court’s review. The critical issue in this case is whether a state can force employers to violate federal law under threat of fines and loss of their business licenses. The heart of this case is much broader than vaccination. The precedent set by the lower court is dangerous and could allow states to violate federally protected rights.”