Ronald Hittle, former fire chief of Stockton, California, became the center of a lengthy legal dispute after his 2011 firing over allegations of misconduct. His termination followed an anonymous letter accusing him of corruption and religious extremism, prompting an internal investigation. That review found poor judgment, favoritism, unreported time off, and concerns about effectiveness. One major point of contention was his attendance, with senior staff, at a church-sponsored Global Leadership Summit during work hours. Hittle argued the event met the city’s directive for leadership training, but critics saw it as inappropriate.

After his dismissal, Hittle sued the city, claiming he was fired because of his Christian beliefs. Lower courts rejected the case, ruling that his evidence was insufficient to justify a trial. Hittle argued this outcome reflected a larger problem with the 50-year-old McDonnell Douglas framework, which guides discrimination cases. He and his attorneys said the standard is too rigid and keeps legitimate claims from being heard.

Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court declined to take the case. The decision came at a time when the Court has shown growing interest in religious-liberty disputes, making its refusal notable. Most justices offered no explanation, as is typical.

However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted review. Thomas argued that Hittle presented enough evidence to raise questions about discriminatory intent and called for clearer standards for when mixed-motive discrimination claims should proceed.

Hittle’s lawyers said the city unfairly portrayed him as part of a “Christian Coalition” and improperly used his attendance at the church event against him. The city countered that its reasons for firing him were well-documented and nondiscriminatory.

The Court’s decision came alongside refusals to hear two major gun-control challenges, including cases on Delaware’s assault-style rifle ban and Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements. By declining these appeals, the Court left several state gun laws in place.

Together, these refusals signal a selective approach by the Court—choosing not to revisit key questions about religious discrimination and gun regulation, leaving lower-court rulings to stand for now.