The Department of Justice filed suit against the State of New York on June 18, 2026, challenging a state law that requires the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, a Catholic religious order, to house biological males alongside female patients in their residential hospice facilities [1]. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division brought the action in U.S. District Court, alleging the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to religiously affiliated health care providers [1].
The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne operate residential hospice programs grounded in Catholic teaching, which the order contends requires sex-segregated patient housing as a matter of religious practice and patient dignity. The underlying state law mandates that facilities accommodate patients according to gender identity rather than biological sex [1]. The Sisters had already filed their own challenge against the State of New York, and the DOJ's action represents a parallel federal intervention in support of their position [1]. Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the DOJ Civil Rights Division, has positioned the division as an active enforcer of religious liberty protections against state-level gender identity mandates [1].
The DOJ framed the lawsuit as a straightforward equal protection claim, arguing that New York imposes the housing requirement on religious operators without a constitutionally sufficient justification, and that the mandate directly conflicts with the Sisters' sincerely held religious beliefs [1]. The case joins a growing line of federal actions in which the current administration has directed the Civil Rights Division to challenge state laws that, in the government's view, subordinate religious exercise to gender identity policy. The intervention signals that the DOJ regards the New York hospice rule as a test case with implications beyond a single religious order.
No hearing date or preliminary injunction schedule has been publicly disclosed as of the filing date. The State of New York has not yet filed a formal response to the federal complaint [1]. The case is expected to turn on whether New York can demonstrate a compelling government interest sufficient to override the religious liberty claims, and whether the state law as applied constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against a religious institution. A ruling on any motion for preliminary relief could carry significant weight for other faith-based health care providers operating under similar state mandates nationwide.