Supreme Court Rejects Fire Chief’s Religious Freedom Case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a former California fire chief who claims he was fired because of his Christian faith—sidestepping a potentially significant case that could have reshaped how courts evaluate workplace religious discrimination.
Ronald Hittle, the former fire chief of Stockton, California, lost his position after a series of misconduct allegations surfaced, including an anonymous letter that branded him a “corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic.” Among the factors cited in his termination was his participation—alongside other city managers—in a church-sponsored leadership summit for Christian professionals during work hours.
Hittle argued that his dismissal stemmed primarily from bias against his religious beliefs and practices. However, lower courts concluded that his claims did not meet the legal threshold necessary to proceed to trial. Seeking a broader constitutional reconsideration, Hittle urged the Supreme Court to revisit a decades-old standard used to evaluate workplace discrimination cases, asserting that the test no longer provides adequate protection for religious employees.
The high court’s refusal to take up the case comes at a time when justices are increasingly being asked to weigh disputes involving religious liberty, including issues surrounding faith-based education and tax exemptions for religious institutions.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch signaled their willingness to hear the case. Thomas argued that Hittle had presented substantial evidence of possible discriminatory intent and noted that the appeal could have clarified when employment discrimination claims deserve a full trial.
Hittle was dismissed in 2011 after a municipal investigation concluded that he demonstrated poor judgment and ineffective leadership. Investigators also found that he failed to report certain absences, engaged in favoritism, and attended a religious event during working hours with other managers. Supporters of Hittle counter that the summit—described as a church-sponsored gathering for Christian leaders—was attended at the city’s own direction as part of leadership development, according to USA Today.
Hittle maintains that his presence at the Global Leadership Summit became the central reason for his termination. He claims that a deputy city manager accused him of belonging to a “Christian Coalition,” suggesting that religious bias influenced the decision-making process.
“When an employer acts for a discriminatory reason, it cannot automatically avoid liability just because lawful reasons also motivated it,” his attorneys argued before the court.
City officials strongly disputed those claims, asserting that Hittle’s firing resulted from documented performance concerns rather than religious discrimination. Municipal attorneys also argued that there was no reason to revisit the Supreme Court’s 1973 precedent in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which remains a “settled touchstone of 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’s lawyers told the court, per USA Today.
In addition to declining Hittle’s appeal, the Supreme Court recently turned away several high-profile gun rights cases, avoiding direct engagement with contentious Second Amendment disputes. Earlier this month, justices declined to review challenges to Delaware’s prohibition on certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines, as well as Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.
By declining these cases, the Court left lower court rulings intact while postponing broader clarification on evolving gun rights controversies. A coalition of gun owners and Second Amendment advocacy groups had sought to block Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 17 rounds after a lower court refused to issue a preliminary injunction.
Reuters noted that such weapons have been used in several mass shootings in the U.S., but according to FBI crime statistics, the vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed with handguns.
The justices also declined to hear a challenge from Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs who argued that the state’s handgun licensing framework violates the Second Amendment. A lower court had previously upheld the law as constitutional.
While the Supreme Court rejected those appeals, it has not yet taken action on additional challenges involving Maryland’s assault weapons ban and a Rhode Island law regulating large-capacity magazines. With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court has frequently applied an originalist reading of the Second Amendment in landmark rulings since 2008—an approach closely watched by gun rights advocates nationwide.
Delaware’s 2022 legislation prohibits a range of semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15 and AK-47 platforms, while allowing individuals who owned them before the ban to retain possession under certain conditions. The law also bars large-capacity magazines, including those owned prior to enactment.
The plaintiffs challenging Delaware’s restrictions include individual residents seeking to purchase banned firearms or magazines, a firearms dealer, and advocacy organizations such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.