October Term 2022 · Docket 22-174

Does Title VII require employers to grant religious accommodations unless they face significant business costs?

The dispute centers on whether a minor inconvenience to an employer blocks a religious accommodation under federal law.

Official caption
Groff v. DeJoy
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Aaron Streett argued that the current standard violates the statute's promise.

    He stated that employees should not choose between faith and jobs.

    He argued that the government does not defend the current test's rationale.

    Elizabeth Prelogar argued that courts have applied the current standard for fifty years.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the legal standard for religious accommodations in the workplace. the side that brought the case argues the current standard is too weak. the opposing side argues the current standard provides necessary stability.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 18, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to replace the current standard with a stricter one.

the opposing side wants the Court to keep the current standard intact.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the current standard forces employees to choose between faith and work.

the opposing side argues the current standard has guided courts for fifty years.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked whether the original case considered the current statute.

Justice Sotomayor asked if the side that brought the case concedes that violating a union contract is a burden.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the cost threshold for religious accommodations. It affects how employers manage schedules and union agreements. It determines the balance between employee faith and business operations.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON