SCOTUS: Denies Does 1-2 v. Hochul Rehearing on NY Vaccine Mandate

• The Supreme Court denied a rehearing request in *Does 1-2 v. Hochul*, a case involving New York healthcare workers challenging a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
• These workers were denied religious accommodations and subsequently lost their jobs for not being vaccinated.
• The Court had previously denied the original petition for review on June 29.
• Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented from the initial denial, arguing the case raised important federal law questions.
• This decision reinforced the legal precedent upholding state-level COVID-19 vaccine mandates and signaled the Court's continued reluctance to intervene in such challenges, though New York's specific mandate for healthcare workers was officially repealed on October 4, 2023.

The Supreme Court's repeated refusal to hear *Does 1-2 v. Hochul*, first denying the petition for review and now the rehearing, reinforced the legal precedent upholding state-level COVID-19 vaccine mandates, especially for healthcare workers, although New York's specific mandate for healthcare workers was officially repealed on October 4, 2023.

The Supreme Court recently opted not to revisit a significant case concerning New York healthcare workers who sought religious exemptions from the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This decision, which saw the Supreme Court deny a petition for rehearing in *Does 1-2 v. Hochul*, was announced as part of the third and final scheduled list of summer orders. The healthcare workers involved in the case had been denied religious accommodation and subsequently lost their employment after refusing vaccination.

This latest action follows the Court's initial refusal to hear the case on June 29, when it denied the original petition for review. The denial of rehearing underscores the Court's consistent approach to challenges against state-level public health mandates, particularly those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The case, *Does 1-2 v. Hochul*, has been a focal point for discussions around religious accommodation and state authority in public health crises.

While the majority of the Court declined to intervene, the initial denial of the petition for review on June 29 was met with a notable dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Gorsuch in his objection, signaling a division within the Court regarding the federal implications of such mandates. Justice Gorsuch articulated that the case presented an "important and recurring question of federal law" that warranted the Supreme Court's attention, suggesting the issues at stake extended beyond the specifics of the New York mandate.

Justice Gorsuch specifically questioned the legal principle that allows a state law, especially one he implied could be unconstitutional, to automatically and unequivocally prohibit a religious accommodation. His dissent highlighted concerns about the balance between state public health powers and individual religious freedoms, particularly when employment is at stake. This perspective suggests that some justices believe the Court should more actively engage with the constitutional questions raised by state vaccine mandates and religious exemptions.

The Supreme Court's repeated refusal to hear *Does 1-2 v. Hochul*, first denying the petition for review and now the rehearing, reinforced the legal precedent upholding state-level COVID-19 vaccine mandates, especially for healthcare workers. However, New York's specific mandate for healthcare workers was officially repealed on October 4, 2023. This signaled the Supreme Court's continued reluctance to intervene in such challenges, effectively allowing lower court rulings in favor of state mandates to stand. For lawyers advising employers or employees on religious accommodations for public health mandates, this outcome solidified existing legal frameworks and indicated limited avenues for appeal at the highest court level.

Summer order lists are typically utilized by the justices to address pending requests for action, primarily petitions for rehearing, that accumulate between the end of June or early July and late September. While the Court generally refrains from adding new cases to its merits docket during these summer lists, reserving such decisions for after the "long conference," exceptions do occur, as exemplified by the grant of review in *Jouppi v. Alaska* on July 20. However, in the context of vaccine mandates, the Court has consistently chosen not to grant review, further cementing the legal landscape surrounding these public health measures.

This decision reinforces the legal precedent upholding state-level COVID-19 vaccine mandates, particularly for healthcare workers, and signals the Supreme Court's continued reluctance to intervene in such challenges. Lawyers advising employers or employees on religious accommodations for public health mandates should note the limited avenues for appeal at the highest court level, solidifying existing lower court rulings.

Source: Original reporting via SCOTUSblog