In Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, (1st Cir., Jan. 9, 2026), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected First Amendment free exercise claims by 12 employees of a Massachusetts state government board. Th employees sought religious exemptions from the Authority's vaccination policy. The court agreed with the trial court that the vaccination policy was neutral and generally applicable, so that it is subject only to rational basis review. Appellants had argued that the policy was not generally applicable because it prohibits religious conduct while permitting comparable secular conduct. The court said in part:
The question is not whether the risks associated with one individual who for religious reasons is unvaccinated are comparable to those associated with an individual who remains unvaccinated due to health concerns.... Rather, the Supreme Court instructs that we consider and compare the risks presented by groups of different sizes in different settings..
... [T]he district court did not err in finding that the two exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes.
First, unlike the religious exemption, the medical exemption furthers the Authority's asserted interest in protecting the health and safety of its employees and customers. ...
Second, not only does the medical exemption further the Authority's asserted interests while the religious exemption does not, but also the risks associated with each exemption are not comparable to one another. We have previously observed that "medical exemptions are likely to be rarer, more time limited, or more geographically diffuse than religious exemptions, such that the two exemptions would not have comparable public health effects."...
Having not persuaded us that the Policy fails rational basis review, the appellants have not established that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and we need not address the remaining preliminary injunction factors....
