Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-1143_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Circuit has joined three other Courts of Appeals refusing to 
apply strict scrutiny.2  This split is widespread, entrenched, 
and worth addressing. 

This case is an obvious vehicle for resolving that conflict.
The New York mandate includes a medical exemption but 
no religious exemption, even though “allowing a healthcare
worker to remain unvaccinated undermines the State’s as-
serted public health goals equally whether that worker hap-
pens to remain unvaccinated for religious reasons or medi-
cal ones.”  Dr. A., 595 U. S., at ___ (opinion of GORSUCH, J.)
(slip op., at 8).  The Court could give much-needed guidance 
by simply deciding whether that single secular exemption 
renders the state law not neutral and generally applicable.
Moreover, I would not miss the chance to answer this re-
curring question in the normal course on our merits docket. 
Over the last few years, the Federal Government and the
States  have  enacted  a  host  of  emergency  measures  to  ad-
dress the COVID–19 pandemic.  Many were not neutral to-
ward  religious  exercise  or  generally  applicable.  See,  e.g., 
Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam)
(slip op., at 4) (listing four other cases from the Ninth Cir-
cuit alone); Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 
592 U. S. ___ (2020).  Circumstances forced us to confront 
challenges  to  those  measures  in  an  emergency  posture,  a 
practice  that  Members  of  this  Court  have  criticized.    See, 
e.g., Merrill v. Milligan, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (KAGAN, 
J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 
11) (lamenting use of the so-called “shadow docket to signal 
—————— 
F. 3d 1214, 1234–1235 (CA11 2004); Fraternal Order of Police v. Newark, 
170  F. 3d  359,  365–366  (CA3  1999);  Mitchell  Cty.  v.  Zimmerman,  810 
N. W. 2d 1, 15–16 (Iowa 2012). 

2 See We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F. 4th 266, 284–290 (CA2 
2021) (per curiam); Doe v. San Diego Unified School Dist., 19 F. 4th 1173, 
1177–1178 (CA9 2021); Doe 1–6 v. Mills, 16 F. 4th 20, 29–31 (CA1 2021); 
303  Creative  LLC  v.  Elenis,  6  F. 4th  1160,  1186  (CA10  2021),  cert. 
granted, 595 U. S. ___ (2022) (granting certiorari to review a Free Speech 
Clause claim).