Supreme Court Rejects Fire Chief’s Religious Freedom Case
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the religious-discrimination case of former Stockton, California, fire chief Ronald Hittle—quietly sidestepping an opportunity to revisit a decades-old legal standard that many argue has failed to protect Americans of faith in the workplace.
Hittle, who was fired after a series of misconduct allegations—including an anonymous letter calling him a “corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic”—maintained that one of the real drivers behind his dismissal was his attendance at a Christian leadership summit. The gathering, held during work hours alongside other department managers, was sponsored by a church. Despite that, Hittle said he attended at the city’s request as part of leadership training.
Lower courts ruled his claims insufficient, but Hittle urged the Supreme Court to reassess the 50-year-old standard governing workplace discrimination claims. The Court declined.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch signaled they would have taken the case. Thomas argued that Hittle had provided “ample evidence of discriminatory intent” and said the Court should offer clearer guidance on when such cases deserve to proceed—an increasingly important issue as workplace clashes over religion grow more frequent.
Hittle was terminated in 2011 after a city investigation claimed he lacked effectiveness and judgment, failed to properly report time off, displayed favoritism, and attended the church-sponsored event during work hours. USA Today noted that the “summit for Christian leaders” was an event Hittle said the city had instructed him to attend.
Hittle maintains that his participation in the Global Leadership Summit was the true catalyst for his removal, alleging that a deputy city manager even accused him of belonging to a “Christian Coalition.”
His legal team argued, “When an employer acts for a discriminatory reason, it cannot automatically avoid liability just because lawful reasons also motivated it.”
The city countered that Hittle was distorting the appeals court’s decision and insisted that there was no need to revisit McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the landmark 1973 framework widely used in employment discrimination law.
“The City’s reasons for terminating (Hittle) were well-documented and entirely appropriate for the Ninth Circuit to rely upon,” the city told the Court, according to USA Today.
Supreme Court Also Declines to Hear Key Gun-Rights Appeals
The religious-discrimination case wasn’t the only major matter the Court passed on. In another move that frustrated many Second Amendment advocates, the justices declined to hear two separate challenges to gun-control laws in Delaware and Maryland.
The first appeal sought to block Delaware’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 17 rounds after a lower court refused to issue a preliminary injunction. Though Reuters pointed to several high-profile mass shootings involving such firearms, FBI statistics show that handguns—not rifles—are overwhelmingly responsible for gun-related homicides in the U.S.
The Court also turned away a challenge led by Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs contesting a state law requiring a license to purchase a handgun. A lower court upheld the law as consistent with the Second Amendment.
While the Court avoided these disputes, it has not yet acted on two additional appeals related to Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons or a similar case in Rhode Island involving magazine capacity limits.
Despite its 6–3 conservative majority, the Court’s refusal to engage these cases leaves in place laws that sharply restrict firearms that millions of Americans consider central to exercising their constitutional right to self-defense. Since 2008, the Court’s major Second Amendment decisions have leaned heavily on originalism—making Monday’s inaction particularly notable.
Delaware’s 2022 gun law bans popular semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 but permits those who owned them prior to the law to keep them under certain conditions. It also bars large-capacity magazines, with similar grandfathering rules. Challengers include state residents seeking to buy the restricted firearms, a firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.