In recent weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear several high‑profile appeals that could have had major implications for disputes over religious discrimination protections and Second Amendment rights. Among the cases the justices chose not to review was Hittle v. City of Stockton, brought by a former California fire chief who alleged that his firing was motivated by religious discrimination. In separate decisions, the Court also refused to take up multiple gun rights challenges, including appeals involving state bans on assault‑style rifles and restrictions on handgun licensing regimes. These refusals mean that the decisions of lower courts — which upheld the challenged employment and gun laws — will remain in effect for now.

Former Stockton Fire Chief Ronald Hittle served for over two decades before being fired in 2011. Hittle claimed that his termination was motivated by religious bias after he attended the Global Leadership Summit, a Christian‑affiliated event, during work hours. Hittle argued he was dismissed not for poor performance but because his Christian faith and actions associated with that faith were viewed unfavorably by city officials. The lower courts, including the Eastern District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, found that Hittle failed to show sufficient evidence that his religious beliefs were the real reason for his termination, instead concluding that his conduct and performance issues were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the city’s decision.

Hittle sought review by the Supreme Court in hopes of revisiting the longstanding McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting framework, a legal test originating from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) that governs how discrimination claims are evaluated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under that test, an employee must first show a prima facie case of discrimination, after which the employer must set forth legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions; the employee then must prove those reasons are mere pretext. Hittle’s attorneys contended that this approach can mask discriminatory intent. While conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the Court should reconsider McDonnell Douglas and allow Hittle’s appeal to be heard, the majority did not grant review, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s ruling intact.

In the same term, the Supreme Court also refused to hear key Second Amendment challenges, particularly concerning Delaware’s assault‑style weapons ban and Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements. Delaware’s statute, passed in 2022, outlawed semi‑automatic rifles and restricted large‑capacity magazines — firearms that gun rights advocates argue are protected under the Second Amendment because they are commonly owned for lawful purposes. The challengers asked the Court to review a lower court’s decision upholding the ban and to clarify how Second Amendment rights apply to modern regulations. Instead, the Supreme Court left the lower court’s rulings in place, effectively keeping Delaware’s ban intact for now.

Meanwhile, the Court also declined an appeal in Maryland’s challenge to its handgun licensing regime, which requires prospective handgun buyers to complete background checks, safety training, and other qualifications before purchasing a firearm. The appeals court had upheld this licensing framework as lawful under existing Second Amendment jurisprudence, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means those requirements continue to govern gun purchases in Maryland. These decisions came after the Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation — a test that lower courts are still applying in varied and evolving ways.

The Supreme Court’s choice not to take these cases underscores a cautious approach to some of the most controversial constitutional questions of the day, even as it has taken up other important Second Amendment and religious freedom challenges. By declining review, the Court allows existing lower court interpretations and state laws to stand, which supporters of gun control see as affirming the constitutionality of state firearm regulations, and critics of employment discrimination law as a missed opportunity to clarify protections for religious plaintiffs. Justice Thomas’s dissent in Hittle’s case, for example, reflects concern among some justices that current frameworks may inadequately protect employees when religious bias is involved, and that the Court should provide clearer guidance.

At the same time, gun rights advocates were disappointed that the Court did not take up the assault weapons and handgun cases, leaving in place a patchwork of varying state standards rather than providing a nationwide ruling on how modern firearm regulations square with the Second Amendment — especially in the wake of Bruen. Some legal analysts note that the Supreme Court’s conservatively oriented majority might nevertheless revisit similar issues in future terms, especially if new petitions present sharper questions about the historical analysis required under current Second Amendment doctrine.

Because the Supreme Court denied certiorari in both the Hittle and gun rights cases, the status quo remains: lower court decisions continue to govern the legal landscape on religious discrimination in the workplace and gun control legislation. For workplace religious discrimination claims, courts will continue applying the McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting test unless and until either the Supreme Court revisits that framework in another case or Congress changes the statutory standards. On guns, state assault weapon bans and licensing regimes challenged in these appeals remain in effect and will be interpreted by lower courts using existing Second Amendment tests — potentially creating continued legal uncertainty and ongoing litigation at the federal appellate level.

Overall, the Court’s reluctance to wade into these contentious debates at this moment reflects both judicial restraint and strategic case selection, leaving significant constitutional questions unresolved at the highest level while permitting democratic processes and lower courts to handle complex legal disputes in these areas.