Case docket
Dr. A, et al. v. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, et al. — Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21A145
Dr. A. v. Hochul — 9 court filings in the archive from Supreme Court of the United States, filed between November 12, 2021 and December 13, 2021. Among them: 1 memorandum or brief, 1 response or reply and 1 letter.
Case facts
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Filings | 9 public filings |
| Filed | 2021-11-12 – 2021-12-13 |
| Document types | memorandum or brief (1), response or reply (1), letter (1), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 9 of 9 |
Case summary
Seventeen New York healthcare workers, identified in the caption by pseudonyms, filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21A145, on November 12, 2021, asking for a writ of injunction or in the alternative a writ of certiorari and a stay against Governor Kathy Hochul, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health and the Attorney General of New York, all in their official capacities. The application challenges a New York regulation requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19, which exempts those citing medical reasons but not those with religious objections, as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and Title VII. On December 13, 2021 the Court denied the application, with Justice Thomas recorded as willing to grant it and Justices Gorsuch and Alito dissenting.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Applicants: seventeen healthcare workers identified in the caption by pseudonyms rather than by name. Respondents: Kathy Hochul, Governor of the State of New York, in her official capacity; Dr. Howard A. Zucker, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, in his official capacity; Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, in her official capacity |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21A145, on application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Sotomayor as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit and referred by her to the Court |
| Program | Not named in the filings on this page. The measure at issue is a New York regulation requiring healthcare workers to receive a COVID-19 vaccine with a medical but no religious exemption; the application and the dissent also refer to the denial of unemployment benefits to terminated religious objectors |
| Claims | As stated in the questions presented: whether an administrative rule is generally applicable when it bans specific religiously motivated conduct while permitting otherwise identical secular conduct; whether such a vaccination rule is religiously neutral under the Free Exercise Clause when it removes a religious exemption while retaining a medical exemption; and whether a state administrative rule can forbid private employers from offering religious accommodations under Title VII |
| Disposition or status | Denied. On December 13, 2021 the Court denied the application for injunctive relief. Justice Thomas would have granted it. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial. The opinion is reported as 595 U. S. ____ (2021). No certiorari decision appears among the filings on this page |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the applicants ask for?
An emergency application for a writ of injunction or, in the alternative, a petition for a writ of certiorari and a stay pending resolution, filed November 12, 2021 and addressed to Justice Sotomayor as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit. It asks the Court to enjoin enforcement of New York's healthcare-worker vaccination mandate against the applicants until the Court can decide their petition for certiorari, on the ground that the State's conduct violates the First Amendment.
What did the Court decide?
In an order of December 13, 2021 the Court denied the application for injunctive relief, recording that Justice Thomas would grant it. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, writing that New York's regulation exempts those who cite medical reasons but has no comparable exemption for individuals whose sincere religious beliefs prevent them from taking one of the available vaccines, that New York appeared to be one of only three States with such a scheme, and that thousands of New York healthcare workers faced the loss of their jobs and of eligibility for unemployment benefits.
What else is on this page?
The State's brief in opposition of November 16, 2021, filed by the Attorney General of New York, and the applicants' reply brief of November 17, 2021. An addendum filed with the application surveys state orders and guidance on COVID-19 vaccine mandates for private-sector healthcare employees state by state as of November 10, 2021. A letter to the Clerk of the Court of November 23, 2021 from counsel for the applicants states that New York had set a deadline of November 22 to cancel religious exemptions and that, as of the previous midnight, 16 of the 17 applicants had been terminated or suspended pending termination with previously granted religious exemptions revoked, and that one had accepted vaccination to keep her job. The page also holds two amicus briefs and an appendix of exhibits that yields no text.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
9 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
- Addendum: State-by-State Survey of Vaccine Mandate Policies — Dr. A v. Hochul (U.S.)PDF
- Appendix of Exhibits — Dr. A v. HochulExhibit · PDF
- Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction — Dr. A v. HochulPDF
- Amicus Brief of Former EEOC Employees — Dr. A v. HochulPDF
- Brief in Opposition to Emergency Application — Dr. A v. HochulMemorandum or brief · PDF
- Reply Brief in Support of Emergency Application — Dr. A v. HochulResponse or reply · PDF
- Amicus Brief of John Doe 1 (Faith-Based Senior Living Center) — Dr. A v. HochulPDF
- Letter to Clerk from Applicants — Dr. A v. Hochul (U.S.)Letter · PDF
- Order and Dissent (Gorsuch, J.) — Dr. A v. Hochul (U.S.)Order · PDF
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.