DOJ joins Catholic nuns’ lawsuit challenging New York law on transgender policies, citing religious freedom and equal protection concerns.
Newsroom (24/06/2026 Gaudium Press ) The U.S. Department of Justice has formally notified a federal court of its intent to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit between the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and the State of New York, marking a significant development in a case that raises questions about the intersection of religious liberty, state regulation, and gender identity policy.
The lawsuit, filed by the Catholic order of nuns, challenges a New York law that requires long-term care facilities to assign rooms and apply gender-related policies based on a resident’s gender identity rather than biological sex. The Sisters, who operate Rosary Hill Home—a hospice facility providing free palliative care to indigent cancer patients—argue that compliance would conflict with their religious beliefs and practices.
In its Complaint-in-Intervention, the Justice Department contends that New York Public Health Law § 2803-c-2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal government argues that the law imposes requirements on religious facilities that it does not equally enforce on secular ones, effectively placing a disproportionate burden on religious institutions.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division emphasized the broader implications of the case. “States should take notice that they cannot require Americans to abandon their religious beliefs in the name of woke gender ideology,” Dhillon said in a statement. She added that for more than a century, the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne have provided critical end-of-life care, and that the law in question would compel them to choose between maintaining their faith and retaining their license to operate.
The New York statute mandates that long-term care facilities house transgender residents according to their gender identity and require staff to use associated names and pronouns. While the law allows for room assignment exceptions based on secular clinical judgments—such as concerns about psychological harm—it does not provide equivalent accommodations based on religious considerations, according to the Justice Department’s filing.
The Dominican Sisters assert that their religious teachings hold biological sex to be immutable and divinely ordained. Within the care setting of Rosary Hill Home, this belief shapes daily practices, including assigning patients to single-sex rooms based on biological sex and using corresponding pronouns. The Sisters also highlight the deeply personal nature of their caregiving, which includes tasks such as grooming and dressing patients, often in intimate contexts.
Failure to comply with the state’s requirements, the Sisters argue, could expose them to penalties including fines, loss of their operating license, and professional consequences for their staff. According to their legal complaint, the hospice has maintained a strong record of care, noting that from February 1, 2022, through January 31, 2026, the New York State Department of Health received zero complaints from their residents. This stands in contrast to more than 55,000 complaints lodged against other nursing homes during the same period, with an average of 23 citations per facility.
Martin Nussbaum, general counsel for the Catholic Benefits Association, which is representing the Sisters, welcomed the Justice Department’s intervention. He pointed to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s certification of the case as one of “general public importance” under federal law, arguing it underlines the constitutional stakes involved. “A state’s policy preference for gender ideology does not trump the protection for religious freedom embedded in our country’s DNA,” Nussbaum said.
The case has also drawn a response from New York state officials. A spokesperson for Governor Kathy Hochul criticized the federal government’s involvement, describing it as a politically motivated action. “This is just another sad attempt by the Trump administration to weaponize the justice system to attack political opponents in an election year,” the spokesperson said in a statement. The statement also defended the state’s broader regulatory actions, asserting that recent policy changes have saved taxpayers over $1 billion while reducing fraud and inefficiencies.
At the heart of the dispute is a complex legal and ethical balance: the extent to which states can enforce anti-discrimination protections involving gender identity, and how those requirements intersect with constitutionally protected religious practices. By entering the case, the Justice Department has elevated its significance, framing it as not only a state-level policy dispute but a broader constitutional question with potential nationwide implications.
As proceedings continue in the U.S. District Court, the outcome could influence how courts interpret the boundaries between religious freedom and evolving anti-discrimination laws, particularly in sensitive environments such as healthcare and end-of-life care.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Justice.gov and NY Post
Related Images:
