11th Circuit: Jewish Student's Masking Objections Do Not Get 1st Amendment Protection

 In Zinman v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., (11th Cir., March 29, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Florida federal district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jewish law student challenging on religious grounds his school's COVID mask mandates. The court said in part:

None of Zinman’s claims are viable. His application for injunctive relief is moot as to all of the defendants. Zinman’s damages claims fare no better. His Title II claim fails because damages are not available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. His Title VI claim fails because the Second Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations -- as it must -- from which we could infer that any of the masking decisions NSU made were animated by discriminatory intent. And his § 1983 claims fail because Zinman has not plausibly alleged that any of his constitutional rights were violated.....

Zinman has failed to state a claim for a free exercise violation arising under the First Amendment because Zinman does not explain why the mask mandates were not neutral and generally applicable. Neutral rules of general application are subject only to rational basis review.... The adoption of mask mandates easily passed this test.... 

Zinman has also failed to state a claim for a free speech violation because wearing a mask is not speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.... 

The likelihood is exceedingly remote and attenuated that a reasonable passerby observing Zinman without a mask on would interpret his unmasked status as an attempt to convey some sort of message. There are so many more probable explanations for a person’s decision to go unmasked that have nothing to do with conveying any sort of message -- political, religious, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a person may not be masked for medical reasons, or because he left his mask at home, or perhaps just on account of a personal dislike for masking.

NYPD Administrative Review of Religious Exemption Claim Was Arbitrary

In Matter of Quagliata v New York City Police Department, (NY County Sup. Ct., March 17, 2023), a New York state trial court remanded a case in which an administrative Panel refused to grant an NYPD police officer a religious exemption from New York City's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Inasmuch as the Panel’s determination sets forth absolutely no rationale whatsoever for its conclusions, other than to incorporate the conclusory reasons articulated by the NYPD EEOD, the Panel’s determination is facially arbitrary and capricious, and may be annulled on that ground alone....

Even were the court directly to review the NYPD EEOD’s initial determination, it nonetheless would be constrained to conclude that the initial determination also was arbitrary and capricious. The NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action....

The court’s conclusion in this regard should not be construed as a ruling that, had the petitioner’s stated reasons for his request for an exemption, and his discussion of religious doctrine, properly been analyzed..., the petitioner’s contentions would have constituted a proper basis for an exemption... 

With respect to ... violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and discrimination in employment..., the petitioner has not established either that the City’s vaccine mandate or the termination of his own employment were premised upon religion, as he has not demonstrated that his conclusions about sin, the use of embryonic stem cells in the development and improvement of various vaccinations and medications, and the alleged proscription of desecrating the human body via any genetic manipulation that mRNA vaccinations might generate, are established Catholic doctrine, or merely his personal interpretation of his obligations as a practicing Catholic.

6th Circuit: Employees Have No Free Exercise Claim Against Company That Denied Them a Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

In Ciraci v. J.M. Smucker Company, (6th Cir., March 14, 2023), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that employees of a company that sells food products to the federal government may not assert a 1st Amendment free-exercise claim against the company for denying them a religious exemption from a COVID vaccine mandate imposed by the company after the federal government required government contractors to do so. The court said in part:

Constitutional guarantees conventionally apply only to entities that exercise sovereign power, such as federal, state, or local governments.... Smucker’s may be a big company. But it is not a sovereign. Even so, did Smucker’s become a federal actor—did it exercise sovereign power?—for purposes of this free-exercise claim when it sold products to the federal government and when it imposed the vaccine mandate because the federal government required it to do so as a federal contractor? No, as the district court correctly held. We affirm....

Smucker’s does not perform a traditional, exclusive public function; it has not acted jointly with the government or entwined itself with it; and the government did not compel it to deny anyone an exemption. That Smucker’s acted in compliance with a federal law and that Smucker’s served as a federal contractor—the only facts alleged in the claimants’ complaint—do not by themselves make the company a government actor.

The court went on to suggest that even if the company were a state actor, there may be no cause of action against them:

To the extent the claimants seek damages directly under the First Amendment against a federal official, they must rely on the kind of implied cause of action created by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). But extending Bivens is “disfavored” ...

That leaves claimants’ demands for a declaratory judgment, reinstatement, and other equitable relief. In equity, it is true, claimants sometimes may “sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers” even in the absence of a statutory cause of action.... But today’s claimants seek more than a prohibitory injunction. They seek reinstatement and other affirmative relief. It is not clear whether, as a matter of historical equitable practice, we may infer, imply, or create a cause of action for such relief. But because the parties have not briefed or argued these points and because they do not go to our jurisdiction, we need not decide them today.

COVID Order Violated Priest's Free Exercise Rights

 In Urso v. Mohammad, (D CT, March 10, 2023), a Catholic priest sued a town's health director over COVID orders that cancelled religious gatherings and congregational prayers. The court concluded that the health Directive violated plaintiff's free exercise rights, but left for trial the question of whether plaintiff suffered an injury, saying in part:

[N]ot all secular businesses in the Town of Orange were closed, and the Directive itself is unquestionably stricter than the Governor’s Executive Orders, which imposed capacity limits on religious institutions in line with those imposed on other secular businesses, and never cancelled all religious services completely.... In Agudath Israel, the Second Circuit applied strict scrutiny when businesses such as retail stores, news media, financial services, and construction were not as restricted as houses of religious worship.... Thus, the Second Circuit has already made the determination there is no meaningful difference between a retail store and a house of worship in terms of COVID-19 risk.... Regardless of how well intentioned it might have been and the difficult circumstances under which it was issued, the Directive “expressly singles out religion for less favored treatment” by subjecting religious services to complete cancellation while not imposing such strict measures on other businesses regardless of their size or the length of time people were gathering there ... and is thus subject to strict scrutiny....

The Court determines therefore as a matter of law both that the Directive is subject to strict scrutiny, and that it fails that scrutiny, thus violating the First Amendment....

The court concluded that plaintiff's equal protection claim is tied to the free exercise claim.  The court found that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were now moot. It rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause claim saying that the health directive did not "establish religion or espouse a religious message." It rejected plaintiff's free speech and freedom of assembly claims, relying on the Supreme Court's 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Minnesota Appeals Court Decides When Religious Reasons for Vaccine Refusal Were Proven

In three cases decided within days of each other, the Minnesota Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of whether employees' claims of religious objections to the COVID vaccine were credible.  At issue in each case was the former employee's entitlement to unemployment benefits.  If the religious claim was legitimate, vaccine refusal would not constitute disqualifying employment misconduct.

In Washa v. Actalent Scientific, LLC, (MN App, Feb. 22, 2023), the court reversed the decision of an unemployment law judge. It found that substantial evidence did not support the unemployment-law judge's finding that a medical lab technician's refusal was based on safety concerns rather than religious beliefs.  The technician had testified that he did not want to be defiled so that God could enter and he could avoid going to Hell.

In Quarnstrom v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, (MN App., Feb. 22, 2023), the court remanded the case, finding that the unemployment-law judge had used the wrong standard in deciding whether an insurance adjustor's refusal was personal rather than religious. The court said in part:

The ULJ reasoned that Quarnstrom’s reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were not based on sincerely held religious beliefs because she did not cite to particular passages in the Bible, had not been instructed by a religious advisor to refuse the vaccine, and conceded that other members of her congregation could, consistent with their faith, choose to get a vaccine. But “the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.”...

In McConnell v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, (MN App, Feb. 24, 2023), the court in a 2-1 decision held that the record did not support the unemployment-law judge's conclusion that vaccine refusal by an FRB employee was based on secular, not religious, reasons.  The majority said in part:

Although McConnell testified to concerns regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, she repeatedly tied those concerns back to her faith.... [S]he testified that, although she believes in some medical interventions, she “prayerfully consider[s] things.” The ULJ found McConnell’s testimony regarding safety concerns credible and rejected her testimony regarding her religious beliefs as not credible.... The ULJ offered no reason for crediting only part of McConnell’s testimony, and we can discern none.

Judge Segal dissented, saying in part:

I would conclude that, although it implicates constitutional rights, this appeal, like many others, turns on a credibility determination that is supported by the record. As such, I believe that precedent requires that we defer to the ULJ’s credibility determination.

Poll Worker Loses Free Exercise Challenge to Vaccine Mandate

In Wolfe v. Logan, (CD CA, Jan 25, 2023), a California federal district court in an In Chambers proceeding granted Los Angeles County officials' motion to dismiss numerous challenges by plaintiff to the county's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for poll workers. Rejecting plaintiff's Free Exercise challenge, the court said in part:

The policy, as alleged by Wolfe, is neutral and generally applicable. It does not directly target religious expression; the burden that a vaccination requirement places on religious practice is incidental. Wolfe alleges that the vaccination requirement is "without exception."... Because there are no exceptions, there is no individualized exemption process that might invite religious discrimination. Moreover, the vaccine requirement makes no distinction between secular or religious objections people might have to the vaccine; everyone is required to get one if they wish to act as a poll worker.... The policy could hardly be more neutral and generally applicable, and it is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny.

Court Rejects Free Exercise Claim of Judge Who Was Not Reappointed Because of Vaccination Status

In Donlon v. City of Hornell, (WD NY, Feb. 27, 2023), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the city to appoint plaintiff to another term as an assistant city court judge. Plaintiff was denied a religious exemption from the New York court system's COVID vaccination mandate.  This meant that she was unable to conduct in-person hearings and could not maintain a criminal calendar while working virtually. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the City’s alleged reasons for denying her reappointment were either “non-neutral or not generally applicable.”... 

In her papers, Plaintiff has a tendency to conflate her vaccination status with her religious beliefs, but the two are distinct....

Plaintiff acknowledges that the City’s concern was not her religious beliefs about vaccination, but the fact that her vaccination status interfered with her “ability to do [her] job while barred from the courtroom.”...

The City’s preference for a candidate who could hold proceedings in person and maintain the criminal caseload required of the position is “religion[] neutral.”... The City is free to prefer such a candidate, and Plaintiff is not, “under the auspices of her religion, constitutionally entitled to an exemption,”... or to “preferential . . . treatment.”... Furthermore, Plaintiff presents no evidence that the City’s preference was not generally applicable—i.e., that the City relied on this preference in a selective manner, imposing “burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.”... There were only two candidates for the position, and, in accordance with its “religion-neutral” preference, the City selected an attorney who was vaccinated and could therefore conduct proceedings in person.

Virginia Legislature Passes Law Protecting Houses of Worship from Discriminatory Restrictions During Emergencies

Yesterday, the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to HB 2171 (full text). The bill, which is a reaction to restrictions imposed during the COVID pandemic, provides:

No rule, regulation, or order issued by the Governor or other governmental entity pursuant to this chapter shall impose restrictions on the operation of a place of worship that are more restrictive than the restrictions imposed on any other business, organization, or activity.

Virginia Mercury, reporting on the bill's passage, says that Gov. Glenn Youngkin is expected to sign the bill. It quotes a proponent of the bill as saying: "This bill means the governor’s not gonna open liquor stores and close churches."

5th Circuit Rejects Pastor's Jurisdictional Theory of Religion Clauses

 In Spell v. Edwards, (5th Cir., Feb. 17, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a pastor and his church claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated by enforcement against them of COVID orders in the early months of the pandemic that barred their holding church services. The court said in part:

Pastor Spell explicitly waived the argument that defendants’ actions violated his constitutional rights under current free exercise jurisprudence....  Pastor Spell instead advanced an absolute, categorical theory of the Religion Clauses, arguing that church assembly is “beyond the jurisdiction of the government.”... He maintained that, under Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there is a “jurisdictional limit on intrusion by the state into the church.”  In so doing, he expressly waived other arguments.

Pastor Spell is the master of his case, and he cannot prevail on the theory he advances. Controlling precedent directly contradicts Pastor Spell’s jurisdictional theory of the Religion Clauses.

Unfiltered With Kiran reports on the decision.

Nurse Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate Loses Title VII and Free Exercise Challenges

In Riley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., (SD NY, Feb. 17, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed without prejudice a suit by a Christian nurse in a hospital's surgical unit who claimed that denying her a religious exemption from the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate violated her rights under Title VII and the Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part:

Title VII cannot be used to require employers to break the law..... When the defendant implemented its vaccine mandate, [New York State Department of Health Rule] Section 2.61, a binding state regulation, required the defendant to “continuously require personnel” like the plaintiff “to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, absent receipt of” a medical exemption. 10 N.Y.C.C.R. § 2.61(c)....

The plaintiff does not argue that the defendant’s vaccine mandate was not generally applicable. She argues only that the mandate “was not neutral and was and is hostile to the religious beliefs of the plaintiff, as it presupposed the illegitimacy of her religious beliefs and practices.”... An enactment violates the neutrality principle if it “explicitly singles out a religious practice” or “targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment.”... The plaintiff pleads no facts suggesting that the defendant’s mandate is guilty of either. To the extent the plaintiff alleges that the mandate’s lack of a religious exception alone makes it non-neutral, We The Patriots forecloses that argument. See 17 F.4th at 282....

Church Can Move Ahead Against County in Suit on Covid Restrictions

 In Abiding Place Ministries v. Newsom, (SD CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court allowed a church to move ahead with certain of its claims against San Diego County for enforcing Covid restrictions against public gatherings. The court held that the county's public health officer had qualified immunity against the damage claims because "there was no clear precedent in March or April 2020 that would have put every reasonable official on notice that promulgating orders restricting in person religious gatherings to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus was clearly and definitively unconstitutional."

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly, Establishment Clause, Free Speech and Equal Protection claims against the County. The court said in part:

The County threatened enforcement, penalties, and fines if Plaintiff did not comply with the County Order.... Plaintiff alleges this action by the County “forced the Church’s members to remain away from church against their will, under threat of punishment,,,,”  [T]he allegations of the FAC regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy is sufficient overcome the County Defendants’ argument that it cannot be liable under Monell. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED on this ground.....

[The FAC] alleges the County’s Orders and Defendants’ enforcement “had the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity” and caused “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Plaintiff contends its religious services exempted from gatherings were treated differently than other public gatherings.... At this stage of the pleadings, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action is DENIED....

Whatever level of scrutiny is applied, Plaintiff has alleged they were prohibited from engaging in protected speech and assembling in person for the purpose of worship while other gatherings promoting non-religious speech were permissible.... Taking those allegations as true, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged claims for violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clauses....

Plaintiff contends Defendants “intentionally and arbitrarily categorized individuals and conduct as either ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential.’”... At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause....

Canadian Church Not in Contempt for Violating Covid Restrictions

In New Brunswick v. His Tabernacle Family Church Inc., (KB NB, Feb. 3, 2023), a trial court in the Canadian province of New Brunswick refused to hold a church in contempt for a violation of Covid restrictions because it was not unequivocally clear that the church knew it was in violation of a previous consent decree.  The church, after signing a consent decree, moved its services to a commercial tent in order to avoid restrictions on gatherings in "public indoor spaces." Initially the sides of the tent were raised, but as weather became colder, the church lowered the sides.  The Province contended that once the sidewalls of the tent were down, the tent became an enclosed space. The court said in part:

The Applicant was aware that initially the Respondents were using the commercial tent with the side walls up. My understanding of the Applicant's position is that such activity would not be in violation of the Mandatory Order as it relates to "public indoor spaces." However, once all four side walls of the tent were down, the Applicant was of the view that the Mandatory Order had been breached. At a minimum, it was incumbent on the Applicant to advise the Respondents at what point they would be in breach of the Mandatory Order.... [T]here is a point at which the use of the commercial tent becomes an "enclosed space". However, as I write this decision, it is unclear to me when that occurs and counsel for the Applicant were unable to provide a clear answer to the question.... [T]he court struggles to understand how the Respondents were to know....

Fox News reports on the decision.

Denial of NYPD Officer's Religious Objection to Vaccination Was Arbitrary and Capricious

 In Grullon v. City of New York, (NY County Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2023), a New York state trial court held that the New York Police Department's denial in internal appeals of a police officer's religious objections to the Department's Covid vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious. The court said in part:

[D]espite Petitioner's detailed submission, the Appeals Panel failed to even mention any of Petitioner's arguments, let alone refute them as being non-religious in nature or not sincerely held beliefs. The decision also failed to mention NYPD's underlying decision denying Petitioner's application or the basis of the decision including the reasons listed on the checked boxes. The decision also failed to mention that it was affirming NYPD's denial and that it agreed with any of the reasons for which the underlying denial was based. Simply, the denial of the appeal is devoid of any explanation, reasoning, or support for its determination that Petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation did not meet criteria. The Appeals Panel failed to state what the criteria was for obtaining a reasonable accommodation, it failed to include which criteria Petitioner's request failed to satisfy, or any details or support for its determination. Without any explanation or details, the purported reason provided that it did not meet criteria is tantamount to no reason at all.

The court concluded that the officer is entitled to employment with a reasonable accommodation of weekly Covid testing.

Student Loses Free Exercise Challenge To University's COVID Vaccine Mandate

In Collins v. City University of New York, (SD NY, Feb. 8, 2023), a New York federal district court rejected a student's claims that his free exercise, equal protection and procedural due process rights were violated when he was denied a religious exemption from City University's COVID vaccine mandate.  In rejecting the student's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

As established by recent Second Circuit case law, the Vaccination Policy is neutral, generally applicable, and easily passes rational basis review.

2nd Circuit Hears Arguments on Religious Objections to NYC Employee Vaccine Mandate

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments yesterday in New Yorkers For Religious Liberty, Inc. v. The City of New York. (Mp3 audio of full oral arguments.) At issue are 1st and 14th Amendment challenges to New York City's public employee COVID vaccine mandate by employees with religious objections to the vaccines. (See prior posting). ADF has links to some of the pleadings filed in the case.

Court Tells City to Negotiate Damages After Its Wrongful Arrest of "Psalm Sing" Protesters Against Covid Restrictions

In Rench v. City of Moscow, (D ID, Feb. 1, 2023), an Idaho federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by three plaintiffs who were arrested for violating a COVID Public Health Emergency Order requiring masking or social distancing in public settings.  The Order was issued pursuant to an Ordinance that excluded expressive and associative activity protected by the 1st Amendment if the activity was not specifically prohibited in the Public Health Order. Plaintiffs participated in a local church's "psalm sing" to protest the Order.  In making the arrests, authorities overlooked the exclusion for 1st Amendment activity. Eventually the city moved to dismiss the case, but not before plaintiffs incurred significant legal expenses, The court said in part:

The City’s Code could not be more clear: Under a plain reading of the Order in conjunction with the Ordinance, all expressive activity was excluded from the mask or distance mandate because such conduct was not explicitly addressed in the Order itself. In other words, during the relevant time period, those participating in expressive or associative conduct were not required to mask or distance. Plaintiffs should never have been arrested in the first place, and the constitutionality of what the City thought it’s Code said is irrelevant.....

Given that Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested, the City indisputably erred in interpreting its own Code, the City consequently misadvised its officers as to the Code’s application, and Plaintiffs are so far reasonable in their damages requests, this case should not need to see the inside of a courtroom. It would behoove everyone involved to take a step back from their respective positions and prepare to negotiate in good faith.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Navy SEAL's Suit Seeking COVID Vaccine Exemption

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard oral arguments in U.S. Navy SEAL's 1-26 v. Biden, (Docket No. 22-10077, argued 2/6/2022) (audio recording of full oral arguments). In the case, a Texas federal district court issued preliminary injunctions barring the U.S. Navy from imposing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Navy service members who sought religious exemptions from the requirement. (See prior postings 1 and 2). Politico reports on the oral arguments.

Federal Reserve Bank Can Be Sued Under Both Title VII and RFRA

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2023), a New York federal district court held that two former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may bring Title VII as well as RFRA and Free Exercise claims against FRBNY for denying them a religious exemption from the Bank's COVID vaccine mandate. It distinguished cases holding that other governmental entities can be sued only under Title VII. It held however that New York City and New York state anti-discrimination laws are pre-empted by federal law giving NYFRB the power to dismiss employees.

Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Is Upheld

In Spivack v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, Jan. 4, 2023), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that Philadelphia's District Attorney Lawrence Krasner did not violate the religious rights of an Orthodox Jewish Assistant District Attorney when he refused to grant her an exemption from the Office's COVID vaccine mandate. The mandate, in its final form, offered no religious exemptions and only limited medical exemptions. According to the court, in seeking a religious exemption plaintiff submitted a letter from her rabbi that explained:

congregation members are forbidden from (1) benefitting from the live dissection of animals; (2) using hybridization technologies; (3) "self-flagellating"; (4) exposing themselves to unnecessary risk (Spivack's "natural immunity" to the virus made vaccination unnecessary); and (5) injecting a product whose precise ingredients are undisclosed.... Neither Krasner nor the City disputes that Spivack's sincerely holds her religious beliefs.

Rejecting plaintiff's First Amendment challenge, the court said in part:

Spivack offers no evidence that Krasner's exemption changes "stemmed from religious intolerance, rather than an intent to more fully ensure that employees [at the DAO] receive the vaccine in furtherance of the State's public health goal."...

[T]he medical exemption Krasner finally approved was for an objectively and narrowly defined category of persons: non-union DAO employees for whom a vaccination could be life-threatening. This is not the kind of exemption that undermines the Policy's general applicability....

The DAO ... "seriously considered substantially less restrictive alternatives" in the hope that they could achieve the Office's compelling interest-- "trying to keep people as safe as we can."... Concluding that these alternatives were inadequate, the Office required vaccinations for all non-union employees save one.

In these circumstances, the DAO Vaccine Policy survives strict scrutiny review.

Court Says Idiosyncratic Personal Religious Beliefs May Not Support Religious Accommodation

In In re Moscatelli v. New York City Police Department, (NY Cnty. Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2022), a New York trial court annulled an administrative determination that denied a New York City Detective a religious exemption from the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court held that the administrative determination was arbitrary and capricious, saying that "the NYPD EEOD’s determination is a prime example of a determination that sets forth only the most perfunctory discussion of reasons for administrative action." The court went on, however, to say:

The court’s conclusion in this regard should not be construed as a ruling that, had the petitioner’s stated reasons for his request for an exemption, and his discussion of religious doctrine, properly been analyzed and explained by the Panel or the NYPD EEOD in the challenged decisions, those contentions would have constituted a proper basis for an exemption. That would have required a forthright engagement by those agencies with the religious contentions and arguments raised by the petitioner.... It would also have required some actual inquiry ... into the petitioner’s prior behavior concerning vaccines and medications. Had those agencies taken that approach, their determinations might have survived judicial scrutiny, as the petitioner provided scanty proof that the rejection of vaccinations or medications that have been developed, improved, or tested using fetal stem cells is an accepted tenet of Catholic doctrine, as opposed to a personal interpretation of doctrine by a lay person or even a few members of the clergy....

[T]he petitioner ... has not demonstrated that his conclusions about sin, the use of embryonic stem cells in the development and improvement of various vaccinations and medications, and the alleged proscription of desecrating the human body via any genetic manipulation that mRNA vaccinations might generate, are established Catholic doctrine, or merely his personal interpretation of his obligations as a practicing Catholic....  Nor has he demonstrated that he had previously declined to be treated with [other] drugs ... which were either developed, improved, or recently tested by their manufacturers for adverse side effects using stem cells from aborted fetuses.