Patterson v. Walgreen

Q: What court decided Walgreen?

Patterson v. Walgreen was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019.

Q: Who won Walgreen?

The outcome in Patterson v. Walgreen was: Pending. The Court will decide whether the di minimis definition of 'undue hardship' from TWA v. Hardison will remain in place in a case involving a Seventh-day Adventist terminated for refusing to work on Saturday.

Q: What legal issues are involved in Walgreen?

Patterson v. Walgreen involves the following religious liberty issues: Free Exercise, Workplace Accommodation.

The Court will decide whether the di minimis definition of ‘undue hardship’ from TWA v. Hardison will remain in place in a case involving a Seventh-day Adventist terminated for refusing to work on Saturday.

ReligiousLiberty.TV

February 26, 2026

0 min read

Year: 2019 Court: U.S. Supreme Court Outcome: Pending

Free Exercise Workplace Accommodation

Holding: The Court will decide whether the di minimis definition of 'undue hardship' from TWA v. Hardison will remain in place in a case involving a Seventh-day Adventist terminated for refusing to work on Saturday.

Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

No official documents found yet.

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Workplace Religious Accommodation Cases April 6, 2021

Brief mention

Patterson v. Walgreen is a Free Exercise case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. The court held that the Court will decide whether the di minimis definition of 'undue hardship' from TWA v. Hardison will remain in place in a case involving a Seventh-day Adventist terminated for refusing to work on Saturday. The case resulted in a Pending outcome.

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor606 U.S. 522 (2025)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
📄 Opinion available
2
Gilfillan v. City of Philadelphia637 F.2d 924 (1980)
2
Philadelphia violated the Establishment Clause by spending taxpayer funds to build a platform for a papal mass and…
📄 Opinion available
3
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.573 U.S. 682 (2014)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Religious liberty protections under RFRA apply to closely held for-profit corporations.
📄 Opinion available
4
Hubersberger v. State2 CA-CV 2025-0188 (2026)
1
Religious motivation does not provide immunity from neutral criminal laws protecting private property; the state may prosecute trespassers…
📄 Opinion available
5
Roake v. BrumleyNo. 24-30 (2026)
1
Anti-Religion
A preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana's Ten Commandments display law is vacated because plaintiffs' legal challenge is not yet…
6
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District(2026)
1
Pending
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reconsidering whether Texas can mandate Ten Commandments displays in public…
7
Kimberly Ann Polk v. Montgomery County Board of Education
1
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a substitute teacher's lawsuit challenging a school district…
8
United States v. Don Lemon(2026)
1
U.S. District Court
Pending
The government indicted Don Lemon under the FACE Act for alleged coordination in disrupting religious worship, though judges…
9
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. DoeNo. 24-856 (2026)
1
U.S. Supreme Court
Pending
The Court must determine if U.S. corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim…
📄 Opinion available
10
Satanic Temple, Inc. v. RokitaNo. 23-3247 (2026)
1
The Satanic Temple lacks associational standing to challenge Indiana's abortion ban because it failed to identify specific injured…
📄 Opinion available