Cite This Case
Patterson v. Walgreen, No. 18-349 (U.S. 2019).
✓ Copied!
Standard law review / practitioner format. Verify against current Bluebook edition (21st ed.).
Patterson v. Walgreen, No. 18-349 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019). https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/patterson/
✓ Copied!
For legal scholarship in social science journals. Includes URL back to this case page.
Patterson v. Walgreen (No. 18-349) [U.S. Supreme Court, 2019] — 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. Source: ReligiousLiberty.TV (https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/patterson/, accessed April 9, 2026).
✓ Copied!
For general audiences, journalism, press releases, and non-legal writing.
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
Patterson v. Walgreen (18-349) 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.