Christian Organizations Ask Supreme Court To Stay OSHA Private-Employer Vaccine Mandate

Last Friday, in a 2-1 decision in In re: MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing, (6th Cir., Dec. 17, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a stay of OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard that calls for employers of of 100 or more persons to require either COVID vaccination of employees or weekly testing (and masks) for unvaccinated workers. Challenges in some three dozen cases had been consolidated in the 6th Circuit which then had authority to modify or dissolve the prior stay issued by the 5th Circuit. 

Among the consolidated cases was one brought by a number of Christian schools, colleges and organizations that were subject to the rule. They quickly filed an Emergency Application with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a stay pending appeal of the 6th Circuit's decision. The Application (full text) in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/17/2021) argues:

OSHA lacks jurisdiction to regulate religious non-profit institutions, because they are not “employers” under the OSH Act.

It goes on to contend that the OSHA rule also violates Applicants' religious freedom rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, saying in part:

OSHA “commandeers” Religious Institutions “to compel [their] employees” to comply with the mandate.... To ensure compliance, Religious Institutions must probe their ministers’ and employees’ intimate and personal medical decisions that often implicate their religious beliefs. This is precisely the “secular control or manipulation” that the First Amendment prohibits.... In addition, the mandate violates the First Amendment by setting the “terms and conditions of employment” to work for Religious Institutions ... and interfering with their ability to “select[] ... the individuals who play certain key roles”....

Religious Institutions exercise their faith by providing seminary training, providing Catholic and Christian education, engaging in nonprofit ministries, and operating for-profit businesses according to Christian values. The Mandate will force Religious Institutions to take faculty out of classrooms, and staff out of operating these organizations and businesses—for testing on a weekly basis or for non-compliance—which will significantly disrupt Religious Institutions’ mission, including for-profit businesses’ operations and exercise.... This burden is substantial—not mere inconvenience—because Religious Institutions’ employees are not fungible.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the Emergency Application. SCOTUblog discusses the filing.

A second Emergency Application was filed by a different group of Christian organizations.  The Application (full text) in Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. OSHA, (Sup. Ct., filed 12/19/2021) contends in part:

... [T]he violation of the Ministries’ religious faiths is not cured by the provisions of the ETS and Title VII that provide them with discretion to grant religious accommodations to their employees.... The Ministries cannot put their employees to the test by requiring them to seek religious accommodations for the government-imposed vaccine mandate.... In other words, even asking their employees to make a decision of religious conscience about the vaccine mandate causes the Ministries to engage in what they believe is sin. Moreover, the mask requirement for unvaccinated employees also burdens the Ministries’ religious beliefs, because they believe that OSHA’s requirement that they mask unvaccinated employees would forcibly identify those who are unvaccinated and cause division within their organizations.... The Ministries believe they have a Biblical duty to promote unity within their organizations.

Axios reports on this filing.

Defense Authorization Act Requires Religious Exemptions From COVID Vaccine Mandate

On Wednesday, the Senate gave final approval to S.1605, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (full text) by a vote of 88-11. The bill, which was previously passed by the House, now goes to the President for his signature. The bill-- which is over 2000 pages in length-- includes the following provision:

Section 720: The Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform standards under which covered members may be exempted from receiving an otherwise mandated COVID-19 vaccine for administrative, medical, or religious reasons.

5th Circuit Denies Injunction Pending Appeal In Challenge To Airline's Vaccine Mandate

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, (5th Cir., Dec. 13, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, denied an injunction while an appeal is pending in a challenge by United Airlines employees to the company's vaccine mandate that lacks religious or medical exemptions. The majority in a 3-sentence opinion relied on the reasons stated by the district court in denying a preliminary injunction: namely plaintiffs must show "irreparable injury" in order to obtain an injunction, and mere loss of income is not irreparable-- it can be remedied by recovery of damages. (See prior posting.) 

Judge Ho filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Vaccine mandates like the one United is attempting to impose here present a crisis of conscience for many people of faith. It forces them to choose between the two most profound obligations they will ever assume—holding true to their religious commitments and feeding and housing their children.

To many, this is the most horrifying of Hobson’s choices. And it is a quintessentially irreparable injury, warranting preliminary injunctive relief.

Soap Opera Star Sues ABC Over Religious Exemption To Vaccine Mandate

Litigation over religious exemptions from COVID vaccine mandates continues to grow. Yesterday, Ingo Rademacher-- well known for portraying Jasper Jacks on the ABC soap opera General Hospital-- sued in a California state court after his request for a religious exemption from ABC's vaccine requirement was denied. He argues that the expansive right to privacy afforded by the California state constitution protects both informational privacy and bodily integrity, and can be enforced against private parties. The complaint (full text) in Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., filed 12/13/2021) contends:

ABC does not have the authority to force a medical treatment on its employees against their will. Even if it did, it must offer religious exemptions to the forced treatment to anyone who requests one. It cannot discriminate among religions and cannot second-guess the sincerity of one's religious beliefs....

Deadline reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Upholds NY Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption-- This Time Over 14-Page dissent

In Dr. A v. Hochul, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 13, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court today by a vote of 6-3, refused to enjoin enforcement of New York's COVID vaccine mandate which has no religious exemptions.  This is a companion case to We The Patriots USA v. Hochul which reached a similar result with no Justices filing opinions to accompany the Court's order. (See prior posting.) In Dr. A, Justice Gorsuch filed a 14-page dissent, joined by Justice Alito. The opinion reads in part:

Under the Free Exercise Clause, government “cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.” ...  As a result, we have said that government actions burdening religious practice should be “set aside” if there is even “slight suspicion” that those actions “stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices.”...

New York’s mandate is such an action. The State began with a plan to exempt religious objectors from its vaccine mandate and only later changed course. Its regulatory impact statement offered no explanation for the about-face. At the same time, a new Governor whose assumption of office coincided with the change in policy admitted that the revised mandate “left off ” a religious exemption “intentionally.” The Governor offered an extraordinary explanation for the change too. She said that “God wants” people to be vaccinated—and that those who disagree are not listening to “organized religion” or “everybody from the Pope on down.”

Justice Thomas dissented without an opinion. National Law Journal has more on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Relief In Challenge To NY Vaccine Mandate That Lacks Religious Exemption

In another "shadow docket" case, the U.S. Supreme Court today in a brief Order (full text) denied injunctive relief in We The Patriots USA v. Hochul. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented. The case was a challenge to the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID. The 2nd Circuit had also denied an injunction. (See prior posting.) CNBC reports on the Court's action.

Denial Of Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Violated Free Exercise Rights

In Grantonz v. Earley, (ND OH, Dec. 10, 2021), an Ohio federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Cleveland Municipal Court from enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate against two employees (a bailiff and a court reporter) who sought, but were denied, religious exemptions. The court said in part:

Where the Cleveland Municipal Court Order compels Plaintiffs to choose between following their religious beliefs or forfeiting their jobs, it significantly burdens their free exercise of religion and is not neutral. Further, by setting up a mechanism for exemptions which are granted at Defendants’ discretion and without an opportunity for appeal, AO 2021-05 is not generally applicable....

The Cleveland Municipal Court’s Administrative Order AO 2021-05 does not pass the test of strict scrutiny. Defendants have not articulated compelling reasons for denial of religious exemptions. In the October 2, 2021 letters to Plaintiffs, in fact, Defendants provided no reasons whatsoever. A policy, such as the one before this Court, that infringes the free exercise of religion, that does not serve interests of the highest order and is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests cannot survive strict scrutiny. 

9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Against School District's Vaccine Mandate

On Nov. 28, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate because it denied religious exemptions while allowing a deferral option for pregnant students. (See prior posting.) Subsequently the school district removed the deferral option for pregnant students. So in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2021), the court, in a 2-1 decision, held:

Given the removal of the “per se” deferral option for pregnant students, the injunction issued in the November 28, 2021 order has terminated under its own terms.

The majority rejected the claim that medical exemptions, temporary exemptions for students who are homeless, in migrant status or foster care, or in military families, and special provisions for students with Individualized Education Programs, but the absence of religious exemptions, undermine the general applicability of the vaccine mandate.

Judge Ikuta dissented, arguing that these secular exemptions mean that the mandate is not generally applicable and thus must be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard, saying in part:

These religious and secular activities pose identical risks to the government’s asserted interest in ensuring the “safest environment possible for all students and employees,” because both result in the presence of unvaccinated students in the classroom, who could spread COVID-19 to other students and employees.

Plaintiff's attorney has said that emergency relief will be sought from the U.S. Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiffs' Petition for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking for an injunction or stay pending appeal.

Oklahoma AG Sues To Invalidate Biden's Vaccine Mandate For Federal Employees

Oklahoma's Attorney General and its Governor, along with 16 Oklahoma Air National Guard members, have sued to invalidate President Biden's Executive Order requiring COVID-19 vaccination for all federal employees. The complaint (full text) in State of Oklahoma v. Biden, (WD OK, filed 12/2/2021), contends that the mandate violates various provisions of the Constitution and federal law, including the Free Exercise Clause:

The vaccine mandate is undermining the sincerely held religious beliefs of Oklahoma residents and at least some individual Plaintiffs. This mandate is not a law of  general applicability because it contains exemptions that almost certainly will be unavailable to some individual Plaintiffs. Specifically, although EO 14043 does not even discuss religious exemptions, the SFWTF says only that a religious exemption might apply.... It adds: “Determining whether an exception is legally required will include consideration of factors such as the basis for the claim; the nature of the employee’s job responsibilities; and the reasonably foreseeable effects on the agency’s operations, including protecting other agency employees and the public from COVID-19.” Id. This non-committal and uncertain language gives Plaintiffs no assurance whatsoever.

The Oklahoma Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Denies Injunction Pending Appeal Of Case On Vaccine Mandate Exemptions

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Together Employees v. Mass General Brigham Inc. through an Order by Justice Breyer denied an Emergency Application for an injunction pending appeal to the 1st Circuit of a district court decision. At issue is the denial to eight employees of religious or medical exemptions from a health care system's COVID vaccine mandate.  The 1st Circuit in an Opinion handed down Nov. 18 had previously denied an injunction pending appeal. Boston Globe reports on the case.

9th Circuit Enjoins School District Vaccine Mandate Pending Appeal

In an Order in John Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (9th Cir., Nov. 28, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined, pending appeal, the San Diego school district's COVID vaccine mandate which, while allowing certain medical exemptions, does not provide for religious exemptions for students. Judges Berzon and Bennett said the injunction would be removed if the school district removed its "per se" deferral option for pregnant students.  Judge Ikuta, in a partial dissent, said:

I would keep the injunction in effect until the ... School District ceases to treat any students (not just pregnant students) seeking relief from the vaccination mandate for secular reasons more favorably than students seeking relief for religious reasons, because any unvaccinated student attending in-person classes poses the same risk to the school district’s interest in ensuring a safe school environment

The court said that written opinions explaining the order "will follow shortly." California Globe reports on the decision.

New York City Educators' COVID Mandate Falters On Religious Exemption Procedures

In Kane v. De Blasio, (2d Cir., Nov. 28, 2021), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York City's COVID vaccine mandate for school teachers and administrators is not facially unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment because it is a neutral law of general applicability. However the court held that the process-- determined by an arbitrator-- for deciding whether a person is entitled to a religious exemption is unconstitutional:

The Accommodation Standards allowed employees to request a religious accommodation by submitting a request that is “documented in writing by a religious official (e.g., clergy).”... Requests “shall be denied where the leader of the religious organization has spoken publicly in favor of the vaccine, where the documentation is readily available (e.g., from an online source), or where the objection is personal, political, or philosophical in nature.”...

Denying an individual a religious accommodation based on someone else’s publicly expressed religious views — even the leader of her faith —runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s teaching that “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds.”

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Vaccine Mandate For Chicago City Employees Upheld

In Troogstad v. City of Chicago, (ND IL, Nov. 24, 2021), an Illinois federal district court refused to grant a temporary restraining order to city employees who were challenging the state and city mandatory COVID vaccination policy.  Among plaintiffs' various challenges was a free exercise claim, to which the court said in part:

To be clear, if a particular employee is denied a religious exemption, she may challenge that denial, based on the particular facts of her case, as a violation of her free exercise rights. But no Plaintiffs have been denied a religious exemption on grounds other than failing to adequately articulate their individual circumstances, as the City Vaccination Policy requires....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claims that the vaccination mandate violates the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, saying in part:

Plaintiffs might well be correct, if the City Vaccination Policy did not contain any avenue for religious exemptions.

But the City Vaccination Policy does provide a detailed religious exemption process that protects anyone who holds sincere religious objections to being vaccinated.

Court Upholds Testing Requirement For Employees Granted Religious Exemption From Vaccination

In Federoff v. Geisinger Clinic, (MD PA, No. 23, 2021), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a suit by 100 clinic employees who had been granted religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate so long as they submit to tests twice per week. The employees sue seeking to eliminate the testing requirement or, alternatively, to require vaccinated employees as well to submit to testing. The court, in rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory claims, said in part:

First, they assert constitutional claims against a private entity without so much as a paragraph describing how Geisinger could be considered a state actor....

Second, while the Geisinger Employees are in the right area code in alleging that Geisinger violated their rights under federal and state antidiscrimination law ... their allegations fail to touch on these statutes’ most basic requirements. To make out a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the Geisinger Employees must tell the Court what their religious belief is. They have not done so....

[Also] the antidiscrimination statutes require that employees first file their complaint with either the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Geisinger Employees have not done so..... 

[T]he Employees also fail to show that they would suffer irreparable harm...

Court Defers Ruling On Military's Actions On Religious Exemption Requests From Vaccine Mandate

In Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Nov. 22, 2021), a Florida federal district court, after a lengthy discussion of free exercise protection under the 1st Amendment and RFRA, deferred until at least Jan. 7, 2022, ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by service members seeking religious exemptions from the federal government's COVID vaccine mandate for members of the military. According to the court:

[P]laintiffs claim the regulations — governing in each respective branch the availability of a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine and purporting to comply with the demands of RFRA — in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption and without accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine....

[T]he data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA.

The court ordered each branch of the armed forces, beginning Jan. 7, 2022, to file bi-weekly reports on the number of exemption requests and the number granted, as well as on the number of service members court martialed after the denial of a religious exemption. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

School's Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemptions Upheld

In Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Nov. 18, 2021), a California federal district court denied a temporary restraining order in a suit by a high school student and her parents objecting to the school district's COVID vaccine mandate which did not provide for religious exemptions. The court held that the scope of the injunction sought by plaintiff created standing issues, but regardless of that:

In light of the overwhelming weight of authority upholding vaccination requirements in response to free exercise challenges, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.

Thomas More Society has more background on the case.

United Airlines Can Place Employees With Religious Objections To Vaccine On Unpaid Leave

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., (ND TX, Nov. 8, 2021), a Texas federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent United Airlines from placing on unpaid leave employees who received religious or medical exemptions from United's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

This Order does not rule on the ultimate merits of this case. Instead, this Order merely rules on Plaintiffs’ request for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction....

The Court is not insensitive to Plaintiffs’ plight. A loss of income, even temporary, can quickly ripple out to touch nearly every aspect of peoples’ lives, and the lives of their families and dependents. But the Court’s analysis must be guided by the law, not by its sympathy.

Despite the novel facts presented here, the case law is clear that hardships stemming from loss of income are remediable; axiomatically such hardships cannot be called irreparable.

The Hill reports on the decision.

Navy's Limits On Religious Exemptions To Vaccine Mandate Are Challenged

New litigation over limited religious exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates continues to arise.  This time, 35 members of the U.S. Navy filed suit in a Texas federal district court contending that the Navy's policy of denying exemptions or disqualifying from special operations deployment personnel who claim a religious exemption violates their rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint (full text) in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, (ND TX, filed 11/9/2021) alleges a wide variety of religious objections held by various of the plaintiffs who represent Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox traditions:

60. Plaintiffs believe that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine that was tested, developed, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by causing them to participate in the abortion enterprise, which they believe to be immoral and highly offensive to God....

63. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that the human body is God’s temple, and that they must not take anything into their bodies that God has forbidden or that would alter the functions of their body such as by inducing the production of a spike protein in a manner not designed by God....

73. Multiple Plaintiffs hold to the sincere religious belief that, upon seeking guidance from God as to whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, God instructed them not to do so.

74. One Plaintiff holds to the sincere religious belief that trace animal cells in the COVID-19 vaccines, such as from swine, should not be injected into his body.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

 

School Must Offer Alternatives To Nursing Students Who Assert Religious Objection To COVID Vaccination Requirement

In Thoms v. Maricopa County Community College District,(D AZ, Nov. 5, 2021), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two nursing students who sought religious exemptions from the COVID vaccination requirement they faced in order to complete their 3-day clinical rotation. Originally the school required all students to comply with the placement requirements of its most stringent clinical partner, but later modified this for students doing their rotation at a clinic that had less stringent standards. However this did not help plaintiffs since their clinic required universal vaccination with no religious exemptions. The court held that under Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act, the school had not shown that it met the compelling interest/ least restrictive means test.  It undermined its interest in preventing the spread of COVID by allowing religious exemptions when students were assigned to rotations at clinics which did not mandate vaccination. It also had options such as simulated clinical experiences that could be offered as accommodations. The court applied a similar strict scrutiny analysis to plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, finding that the school's policy is not a generally applicable one since in at least one case the school provided an alternative to in-person clinicals.

From 2nd Circuit To Supreme Court, Fight Over NY's Removal Of Vaccine Religious Exemptions Continues

One day after hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging the elimination of religious exemptions from New York's requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated temporary injunctions that had been issued in We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul  and Dr. A v. Hochul. In its October 29 Order (full text), the 2nd Circuit said that written opinions in the two cases would follow expeditiously. On Nov. 1, petitioners in We the Patriots case filed an Emergency Application (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a new injunction while they file a petition for certiorari with the Court. Washington Examiner reports on the filing.

UPDATE: Here is the 2nd Circuit's 50-page opinion supporting its Order rejecting requests for a preliminary injunction. We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, (2d Cir., Nov. 4, 2021).

UPDATE2: On Nov. 12, petitioners in the Dr. A case also filed an Emergency Application for an Injunction or in the alternative the granting of certiorari. (Full text of application).