The Trump administration’s Supreme Court brief opposing review of a New York COVID-19 vaccine mandate case has sparked criticism from religious liberty advocates and vaccine injury attorneys representing fired health care workers.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Trump administration is facing criticism from supporters after the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court not to take up a case brought by New York health care workers who were fired after seeking religious accommodations from the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The dispute involves five lead plaintiffs and about 1,500 other workers who were dismissed after submitting religious accommodation requests. According to Just the News, the administration argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that New York’s mandate did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because the workers sought what the government characterized as a complete exemption rather than a narrower accommodation.
The Justice Department filing came after the Supreme Court requested the government’s view six months ago. The justices had considered whether to take the case eight times over seven months without issuing a decision.
In its brief, the Justice Department drew a distinction between an “exemption” and an “accommodation” under Title VII, arguing that federal law requires reasonable religious accommodations unless they impose an undue hardship on employers but does not necessarily require employers to grant complete exemptions from workplace rules.
Liberty Counsel, which represents the fired workers, filed a supplemental brief days later, accusing the Justice Department of relying on “fundamental errors” about the case and the facts. The group said the government’s focus on terminology ignored the workers’ central claim that New York’s mandate foreclosed religious accommodation altogether.
The case has drawn sharp criticism from vaccine injury lawyer Aaron Siri, who called the government filing a “word salad of nonsense”. In another post on X, Siri tagged President Donald Trump’s personal account and accused the administration of “betraying religious liberty by arguing it is perfectly fine for employers to have policies that allow medical but not religious exemptions to vaccination requirements.”
Former Saturday Night Live cast member and conservative activist Rob Schneider amplified Siri’s criticism, calling the brief “a stunning betrayal to ALL the MAHA supporters of this administration.” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who recently lost his primary after Trump called him “the worst congressman” the Republican Party has ever had, responded by writing, “Trump Disappointment Syndrome.”
The filing follows other court decisions that have frustrated some of the administration’s supporters. The Supreme Court recently reinstated mail-order prescribing conditions for mifepristone while the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether prior administrations unlawfully loosened regulations on the abortion drug. The Justice Department had earlier persuaded U.S. District Judge David Joseph to pause the case until the FDA completes a safety review, which the government suggested might extend past the midterm elections, but the 5th Circuit overruled Joseph, a first-term Trump nominee.
Liberty Counsel has also noted that three states have enacted laws targeting mail-order abortion drugs in the past two months. Oklahoma threatens fines of up to $100,000 and 10 years in prison for providing abortion pills to women known to be seeking abortions, Iowa requires in-person dispensing and Mississippi threatens 10 years in prison for distribution.
The New York health care workers petitioned the Supreme Court more than a year ago. Their filing cited a 2021 dissent by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas from the court’s refusal to block Maine’s vaccine mandate, which also lacked religious exemptions.
“This case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury,” Gorsuch wrote at the time. Health care workers “who have served on the front line of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered […] for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs.”
The New York plaintiffs argue that the state initially allowed religious exemptions but later revoked that provision, leaving workers unable to seek or obtain “any accommodation for their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Their employers allegedly cited state law when ignoring or denying accommodation requests, arguing that Title VII did not apply.
The 2nd Circuit upheld the mandate, reasoning that granting the requested exemptions would have required employers to violate state law. The workers’ petition cited Gorsuch again, this time from his tenure on the 10th Circuit, arguing that the Supremacy Clause prevents state law from overriding federal civil rights protections.
The case had received little outside attention at the Supreme Court before the Justice Department brief. The docket showed only one outside filing from America’s Frontline Doctors, an anti-COVID vaccine group whose brief focused largely on alleged vaccine risks rather than the Title VII legal questions.
The Justice Department told the court that Title VII requires employers to “reasonably accommodate religious practice” unless doing so would create “an undue hardship on their business operations,” language drawn from the Supreme Court’s 2023 Groff precedent. The government said the statute does not require a complete exemption from a vaccine mandate.
The Justice Department acknowledged that a law barring “any consideration of religious accommodations” would violate Title VII and that employers could not use state law to “skirt compliance” with federal law. But it argued that New York’s rule, as interpreted by the 2nd Circuit, left room for religious accommodations short of complete exemptions.
The government said there was no circuit split for the Supreme Court to resolve, only “potential tension between” 2nd Circuit precedent and the unpublished summary order in this case. The brief also said the now-repealed New York rule had not been interpreted by state courts, making the case a poor vehicle for Supreme Court review.
“Petitioners did not allege that they sought and were denied other accommodations aside from a complete exemption; it is thus an open question whether petitioners could have shown that, in practice, Section 2.61 [the mandate] did not allow any religious accommodations,” the Justice Department said.
Liberty Counsel’s supplemental brief countered that the workers’ damages claims remain live despite the mandate’s repeal and accused the government of ignoring the practical consequences of the state rule. The plaintiffs said their employers refused to engage in the interactive process required by Title VII because the state threatened fines and possible license consequences for noncompliance.
The workers argued that the government ignored sworn testimony showing they sought accommodations and that New York never argued during the litigation that accommodations were available but exemptions were not. The plaintiffs characterized the Justice Department’s distinction as “wordplay.”
One male plaintiff asked New York whether he could provide religious accommodations to employees at his “religious senior healthcare facility,” according to the plaintiffs’ brief. State officials allegedly responded that any accommodation “will result in daily fines and a potential closure of his facility.” Another male plaintiff said his employer told him that his accommodation was “no longer accepted.”
The three female plaintiffs said their employers made no distinction between “exemption” and “accommodation” and instead cited state law as the reason for denying or revoking religious allowances.
Liberty Counsel said one remote worker’s case undermined the Justice Department’s argument. The worker, who had worked remotely for 10 years and previously held exemptions from “all vaccines,” was told by New York-Presbyterian that “religious exemptions are no longer accepted.”
Neither the 2nd Circuit nor New York separated that worker’s facts from those of other employees, according to the plaintiffs.
“The United States ignores his existence entirely, and its conclusions based upon that glaring omission taint its entire conclusion,” the workers’ supplemental brief said.
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will take the case. If the justices decline review, the 2nd Circuit ruling will remain in place, leaving the fired workers without Supreme Court consideration of their Title VII and religious accommodation claims.
Original article
Comments