Supreme Court's Ruling on Religion Case—What to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to soon rule in the case of a Christian mailman who refused to work on Sundays.

The case centers on Gerald Groff in Pennsylvania, who was told that as part of his job with the U.S. Postal Service, he would need to start delivering Amazon packages on Sundays.

He declined, saying that his Sundays are for church and family. Officials with the Postal Service initially tried to find substitutes for the man's shifts, but couldn't always accommodate him.

When he didn't show, it meant more work for others and he eventually missed enough Sundays that he was disciplined. Groff quit in 2019 rather than wait to be fired, and sued the Postal Service for religious discrimination.

Here's what to know.

When Will the Supreme Court Rule on the Case?

The Supreme Court issues its opinions on designated days.

There is currently only remaining date in June on the court's calendar when opinions are set to be issued: Thursday, June 22.

All opinions are typically handed down by the last day of the court's term in late June or early July and there are no rules about when decisions must be released with the exception of that deadline.

What Have the Justices Said?

At the center of the case is the Supreme Court's interpretation of a federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace and requires employers to accommodate employees' religious practices unless doing so would be an "undue hardship" for the business.

In 1977, the Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison said that employers can deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose more than a minimal, or "de minimis" cost on the business.

During oral arguments in April, the justices appeared hesitant to overturn the decades-old precedent.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, part of the court's liberal wing, said the circumstances of each case matter and that "the answer is it depends."

Jackson and fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan noted that lawmakers have had decades to change the law but declined or failed to do so.

"Congress has had a chance to. The ball was in Congress' court," Kagan said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who along with conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito has said the Hardison case should be reconsidered, suggested the "de minimis cost" test should not be the only standard.

"Congress doesn't pass civil rights legislation to have a de minimis effect. We don't think of the civil rights laws as trifling, which is the definition of de minimis," he added.

Several justices indicated that they thought there was enough evidence that Groff's Sunday absences were causing an undue burden on his colleagues and that the Postal Service did nothing wrong in denying an accommodation.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that the Postal Service had "one employee quit, one employee transfer and another file a grievance" as a result of Groff's absences. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is a devout Catholic, suggested that providing the religious accommodation could be damaging to other employees' morale.

What Has Gerald Groff Said?

Groff and his attorney say the ruling in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison should be overturned.

"We really can't go back and change what happened to me," Groff told The Associated Press in a recent interview. But he said that other people "shouldn't have to choose between their job and their faith."

Employers don't have to show much to prove an undue hardship, Groff's attorney, Aaron Streett, said during oral arguments.

The Supreme Court should say that employers must show "significant difficulty or expense" if they want to reject a religious accommodation, he said.

But Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, argued that changing the standard of "undue hardship" was a policy question for Congress, not the Supreme Court, to decide.

How Has the Court Ruled in Recent Religion Cases?

In recent years, the court's 6-3 conservative majority has sided with religious plaintiffs.

The court ruled last term that a former public high school football coach should be allowed to pray on the field after games.

Also in 2022, the court unanimously ruled it was unconstitutional for the city of Boston to deny a Christian group's request to fly a Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall when it had never turned down any other organization.

Another case that the court is weighing this term was brought by a Christian web designer who doesn't want to create websites for same-sex couples' weddings due to her religious beliefs.