Ronald Hittle, the former fire chief of Stockton, California, became the center of a long-running legal dispute after he was fired in 2011 following a series of misconduct allegations. His tenure ended after an anonymous letter circulated within the city government described him as a “corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic,” prompting a deeper investigation into his leadership. That internal inquiry concluded he had demonstrated poor judgment, failed to properly report time off, engaged in favoritism, and shown lapses in effectiveness. One particularly contentious factor was his decision to attend, along with several top-level managers, a church-sponsored Global Leadership Summit for Christian leaders during work hours. Hittle argued that he attended the event because the city directed him to seek leadership development opportunities, but critics within the administration saw the trip as an inappropriate use of work time. The controversy ultimately led to his termination, which Hittle later claimed was rooted not in his performance but in bias against his Christian faith.
After being dismissed, Hittle sought to sue the city, asserting that he was fired specifically because of his religious beliefs and that the stated reasons for his termination were merely a pretext. However, lower courts rejected his lawsuit, concluding that the evidence he offered wasn’t strong enough to justify a trial. Hittle argued that this outcome reflected a broader problem with how courts evaluate workplace discrimination claims, pointing to a 50-year-old Supreme Court standard first articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. That precedent provides a framework for assessing discrimination cases, but Hittle and his attorneys insisted that it has become too rigid and outdated, preventing employees with legitimate claims from getting their day in court. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on Monday, choosing not to revisit the longstanding approach to employment discrimination and avoiding a potentially consequential debate about religious freedom in the workplace. This decision comes at a moment when the Court has shown growing interest in religious-liberty issues involving schools, taxation, and public policy, making its refusal to intervene notable.
While the majority of justices offered no explanation—as is typical when the Court declines to hear an appeal—Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch made clear they would have agreed to review Hittle’s case. Thomas, in particular, suggested that the former fire chief presented enough evidence of discriminatory intent to merit further legal scrutiny. He argued that a clearer standard is needed for determining when workplace discrimination cases should proceed to trial, especially when employees present mixed-motive claims alleging both legitimate and discriminatory factors behind their termination. Hittle’s lawyers argued the city unfairly accused him of being part of a “Christian Coalition” and held his religious attendance against him despite the city’s directive that he participate in leadership training. They insisted that when an employer acts with any discriminatory motive—even if combined with lawful ones—it should not be shielded from liability. The city countered sharply, saying Hittle distorted the appellate ruling and that the McDonnell Douglas framework remains a “settled touchstone” of employment law. According to city attorneys, the reasons for Hittle’s dismissal were well-documented, non-discriminatory, and entirely appropriate for the Ninth Circuit to uphold.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline Hittle’s case was not isolated. Earlier this month, the Court also refused to hear two significant challenges involving gun control laws—one centered on Delaware’s ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines, and the other addressing Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements. By rejecting these appeals, the justices avoided wading into contentious debates over firearm rights at a time when the Court’s conservative majority has been reshaping Second Amendment jurisprudence through an originalist lens. In the Delaware case, gun advocacy groups sought to block a state law prohibiting the sale and purchase of weapons such as AR-15s, AK-47s, and other semi-automatic rifles, as well as magazines holding more than 17 rounds. The lower court had declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, and the Supreme Court let that decision stand. Although such weapons have been used in several high-profile mass shootings, FBI data shows that most gun-related homicides are committed with handguns, a point frequently cited by both sides of the debate but for different purposes.
The Court also declined to hear an appeal from Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs who challenged Maryland’s handgun licensing regime—a law requiring buyers to obtain a license, complete firearm safety training, and undergo fingerprinting. A lower court upheld the law as consistent with the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene allowed that ruling to remain intact. Notably, the Court did not take action on two separate appeals concerning Maryland’s assault-weapons ban nor on a case from Rhode Island dealing with large-capacity magazine restrictions. These unresolved petitions suggest the Court may be waiting for a strategically chosen case to reconsider the constitutional boundaries of gun regulation under its newer precedents, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision, which strengthened protections for gun owners by requiring governments to demonstrate that modern gun laws are consistent with historical tradition. For now, however, these lower-court decisions stand, leaving gun-control laws in several states unaffected.
The Delaware laws at the center of one of the rejected appeals were enacted in 2022 and represent some of the strictest firearm regulations in the nation. In addition to banning the sale of numerous semi-automatic rifles, the legislation restricts the possession of large-capacity magazines, though individuals who already owned the prohibited firearms before the law’s passage may keep them under certain conditions. The challengers to this law included firearms dealers, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Delaware residents who attempted to purchase now-prohibited weapons. Taken together, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases—including Hittle’s religious-discrimination appeal—reflects a pattern of selective engagement by the Court, which appears willing to reshape constitutional law in certain areas while choosing caution in others. In Hittle’s situation, the Court sidestepped a chance to clarify how employers may handle cases involving religious expression in the workplace. And in the gun cases, the Court declined to broaden or narrow Second Amendment protections. For now, the ramifications remain with the lower courts, leaving employees, employers, gun-owners, and legislators to navigate complex legal landscapes without new Supreme Court direction.
