Suit Challenges Connecticut Elimination of Religious Exemption To Immunization Requirement

Suit was filed last week in a Connecticut federal district court challenging Connecticut's recent elimination of religious exemptions to school immunization requirements.  The suit was brought by three parents-- Greek Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim-- and two advocacy groups. The complaint (full text) in We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, (D CT, filed 4/30/2021), contends that the repeal violated plaintiffs' rights to free exercise of religion, privacy and medical freedom, equal protection, child rearing, as well as of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Bronx News 12 reports on the lawsuit.

Connecticut Eliminates Future Religious Exemptions From Immunization Requirements

Yesterday Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed HB 6423 (full text) which eliminates the previously available religious exemption from the state's immunization requirements for school children. However, the new law allows children who have previously been granted a religious exemption to maintain the exemption, with certain exceptions for grade-school children.  AP reports on the adoption of the new law. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

New York's Repeal Of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In F.F. v. State of New York, (App. Div., March 18, 2021), a New York state appellate court rejected parents' constitutional challenges to New York's repeal of the religious exemption from mandatory vaccination for school children. The court upheld the repeal, finding that it was a neutral law of general applicability prompted by the measles outbreak, even though the repeal eliminated a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[W]e do not find that the timing of the repeal reveals political or ideological motivation; rather, the record reflects that the repeal simply worked its way through the basic legislative process and was motivated by a prescient public health concern....

[W]e reject plaintiffs' claims that, based upon statements by some of the legislators, the repeal was motivated by religious animus. Significantly, the 11 statements alleged to suggest religious hostility were attributed to only five of the over 200 legislators in office at any given time.... More importantly, many of the statements do not demonstrate religious animus, as plaintiffs suggest, but instead display a concern that there were individuals who abused the religious exemption to evade the vaccination requirement based upon non-religious beliefs.... The repeal relieves public school officials from the challenge of distinguishing sincere expressions of religious beliefs from those that may be fabricated.

8th Circuit Upholds Missouri Immunization Opt-Out Form

In B.W.C. v. Williams, (8th Cir., March 5, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise, equal protection and hybrid rights challenges by parents and their children to the form they must file in Missouri to obtain a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. The form, which the parent must sign, contains a paragraph urging parents to immunize their child. The court said in part:

Form 11 states the government’s position, separated from the religious opt-out. Unlike a student required to recite the Pledge or a motorist required to display the state’s motto, there is no confusion here: it is the government’s message to parents considering Form 11....

Form 11 does not require the plaintiffs to engage in conduct against their religious beliefs. Plaintiffs object to the process of producing vaccines or introducing vaccines into their children’s bodies.... [S]ubmission of Form 11 does not increase the number of vaccines produced or force their children to get immunized....

Form 11 does not target religious believers or violate their right to equal protection. The defendants do not treat the plaintiffs differently than any other parent requesting an exemption from immunization: they were all required to submit a DHSS form to their school.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Required Measles Inoculation Upheld

In W.D. v. Rockland County, (SD NY, Feb. 22, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, equal protection and due process challenges to an order of the Rockland County Department of Health requiring children between 6 months and 18 years of age to be vaccinated against measles in order to enter any place of public assembly, including for educational or religious purposes. The order did not apply to children with medical exemptions, but did apply to those with religious exemptions. Rejecting plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

Here, the Emergency Declaration is subject to rational basis review because it is both facially neutral and generally applicable.... Under rational basis review, Defendants have demonstrated that the Declaration served the legitimate government purpose of protecting the County’s community from the measles outbreak.... Moreover, even if strict scrutiny applied, the Emergency Declaration satisfies that standard as well. 

No Free Exercise Infringement When Court Allocates Vaccination Decision-Making Between Parents

 In In re Marriage of Crouch, (CO App., Jan. 14, 2021), a Colorado state appellate court remanded a trial court's refusal to modify the allocation of medical decision-making by divorced parents for their children. Originally both parents had agreed, largely for religious reasons, that their children should not be vaccinated. Subsequently the father changed his mind and sought to have them vaccinated.  The appeals court held that the trial court improperly imposed on the father an added burden in order to overcome the mother's right to free exercise of religion.  The court said in part:

A parent’s free exercise rights are not implicated by a court’s allocation of decision-making responsibility between parents.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Missouri Vaccination Exemption Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in two cases consolidated for argument-- B.W.C. v. Williams and G.B. v. Crossroads Academy. In the cases, a Missouri federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by parents to the form that Missouri requires to be completed in order to claim a religious exemption for a school child from vaccination requirements. The form contains language strongly encouraging parents to obtain vaccinations for their children. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Appellate Court Upholds New York City Measles Vaccination Order

 In C.F. v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, (App. Div., Dec. 23, 2020), a New York state appellate court upheld New York City's 2019 Order requiring everyone residing in certain areas of Brooklyn to be vaccinated against measles. An outbreak of the disease had occurred in that area. The court said in part:

The resolution was within the authority of the Board of Health of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make and the resolution itself did not violate any right of the petitioners, including their freedom of religion....

The petitioners profess to hold religious beliefs that hold that a healthy body should not assimilate foreign objects, including vaccine ingredients...

While there are recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court which have reflected a greater solicitude to claims for religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws than had previously been articulated (see e.g. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v Pennsylvania...; Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc....), those cases were not decided under the First Amendment, but under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993....

The petitioners rely on language from Justice Gorsuch's concurrence in Masterpiece Cakeshop, joined by Justice Alito, which characterized the Smith rule as "controversial in many quarters".... While it is certainly conceivable that the United States Supreme Court may, in some future case, reconsider the standard for addressing a religious objector's challenge to neutrally applicable laws, we are bound to apply the constitutional principles as they now exist, rather than engage in a projection as to what principles may evolve in the future....

We believe that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability, even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.

10th Circuit: Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge Kansas Vaccination Requriement

 In Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, (10th Cir., Nov. 3, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a mother's lawsuit challenging Kansas' vaccination law which requires school children to be vaccinated, but allows religious exemptions. Plaintiff's son, S.F.B., was granted a religious exemption. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that nevertheless she suffered injury. The court said in part:

Ms. Baker’s unusual standing theory falls outside any recognized notion of injury based on the potential enforcement of a law. She argues the District misapplied Kansas law in granting the religious exemption to S.F.B. in response to the Bakers’ statement. She asserts that if the District would apply the law correctly, it would revoke the religious exemption, injuring her and S.F.B. From this she contends there is a credible injury in fact....

First, we evaluate Ms. Baker’s injury argument that the District may revoke S.F.B.’s religious exemption because Kansas law compels that result. We find that Ms. Baker has not shown a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact.

Second, we consider Ms. Baker’s contention that Kansas law inhibits her from exercising certain “options” for S.F.B. including home schooling and child care. We reject this theory because Ms. Baker alleges only a “some day” intention to exercise these options that is insufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact.

Maine Voters Refuse To Repeal Strengthened Vaccination Requirements

As reported by BJC, on Super Tuesday earlier this month, voters in Maine, by a 3-1 margin, rejected an attempt to repeal Maine's new stronger immunization law. The law removes the prior exemption for religious and philosophical objections to vaccination. The law goes into effect in September 2021.

Missouri's Vaccination Exemption Form Not Motivated By Religious Hostility

In G.B. v. Crossroads Academy, (WD MO, March 2, 2020), a Missouri federal district court rejected the claim that the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services was motivated by religious hostility when it adopted the exemption Form that parents must complete in order to obtain a religious exemption for their children from the state's vaccination requirement.  The Form includes a message from the Department encouraging vaccination to protect school children.

3rd Circuit: Employee's Flu Vaccine Objections Were Not Religious

In Brown v. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, (3rd Cir., Feb. 14, 2020), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a hospital employee who was fired for refusing to obtain a flu vaccination.  The court held that Naija Brown's objections were not "religious". She practiced an "African Holistic Heath" lifestyle. She claimed that while she did not have a pastor to validate her beliefs, she filed an "advance vaccine directive" prepared by Natural Solutions Foundation. The court concluded that her opposition to the vaccine were medical, not religious. PennLive reports on the decision.

Challenge To Missouri Vaccination Exemption Form Is Dismissed

Reiterating his reasoning in a November preliminary injunction decision, a Missouri federal district judge in W.B. v. Crossroads Academy- Central Street, (WD MO, Jan. 10, 2020), dismissed a challenge to the form that Missouri requires to be completed in order to claim a religious exemption for a school child from vaccination requirements. The form contains language strongly encouraging parents to obtain vaccinations for their children. The court said in part:

I again conclude that if the State wishes to require vaccination of school children, there is an unbroken collection of cases confirming that it can do so. It can also advocate vaccination... Such advocacy (right or wrong) deals with public health issues. It is entirely secular in nature and motive, not “hostile to religion.” For instance, it would not be hostile to a religious objection to eating pork for an agency to certify that pork is safe to eat. The certification, like the DHSS language here, is religiously neutral.... There is also no case-law cited by plaintiffs tending to show that parents are subject to a compelled speech regime when the DHSS message appears at the top of the exemption form that they are required to fill out. The text is in no way ambiguous as to the source of the vaccination recommendation.

NPR reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Firefighter Was Offered Reasonable Accommodation of His Anti-Vaccination Beliefs

In Horvath v. City of Leander, Texas, (5th Cir., Jan. 9, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by Brett Horvath, a Baptist minister who was employed as a driver/ pump operator by the Leander, Texas Fire Department.  As recounted by the court:

In 2016, the Fire Department began requiring TDAP vaccinations, to which Horvath objected on religious grounds. He was given a choice between two accommodations: transfer to a code enforcement job that did not require a vaccination, or wear a respirator mask during his shifts, keep a log of his temperature, and submit to additional medical testing  He did not accept either accommodation and was fired by Fire Chief Bill Gardner for insubordination. Horvath filed suit against Chief Gardner and the City, alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 premised on violations of his First Amendment Free Exercise rights.

The majority concluded that the city had offered Horvath reasonable accommodations of his religious beliefs, and that the respirator alternative did not burden his religious beliefs.

Judge Ho filed a lengthy opinion dissenting in part. He was very critical of both the Supreme Court's Smith precedent and the current jurisprudence on qualified immunity.

Court Dismisses Challenges To NY Repeal of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Requirement

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty NY Sup. Ct., Dec. 3, 2019), a New York state trial court upheld New York's repeal of the religious exemption to the state's compulsory vaccination requirement for school children.  The court rejected Free Exercise, Free Speech and Equal Protection challenges to the repeal.  The suit was brought by some 55 families of school children. In rejecting free exercise claims by plaintiffs, the parents of school children, the court rejected their argument that the object of the law was to target religion rather than protect public health.  The court went on to say in part:

[P]lainitffs most strenuous argument for applying strict scrutiny is that the repeal of the legislation was infected by statements made by individual legislators whose comments, they say, demonstrate unconstitutional hostility toward plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs.  For this argument, Plaintiffs cite Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n., (138 S Ct 1719 [2018]), where the Supreme Court relied on the comments of individual members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which sanctioned a baker for his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple....

This Court declines to extend that part of the Supreme Court's analysis in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which probed the comments of individual members of a decision-making body to the collective decision-making of New York State's Legislature and Executive.... [I]n Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Court considered the remarks of a seven-member administrative body, not a state legislature.

The trial court had previously denied a preliminary injunction against the exemption repeal (see prior posting), and the state appellate court summarily affirmed that decision. Albany Times-Union reports on the trial court's latest decision.

Court Rejects Parents' Objections To Vaccination Exemption Form

In W.B. v. Crossroads Academy- Central Street, (WD MO, Nov. 22, 2019), a Missouri federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by parents to the form that Missouri requires to be completed in order to claim a religious exemption for a school child from vaccination requirements. The form contains language strongly encouraging parents to obtain vaccinations for their children. In rejecting the parents' challenge, the court said in part:

Although the Bakers say they have religious scruples against  vaccination, they are not entitled to insist on governmental silence rather than advocacy....

The parental signature at the bottom of the religious exemption form serves to verify the required parental inserts of the child’s name, the types of vaccination objected to, and the grounds for the exemption, simply asserted as “religious.” Filling in, signing and submitting the form in no way comments on or endorses the State’s message....

The nearest legal problem area may be in the contention that contraception opponents should not be required to be “complicit” in the procedure by filing exemption forms. See, Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U.S. 958 (2014). In this situation, however, the filing of forms does not advance vaccination use but simply results in an exemption.

Kansas News Service reports on the decision.

New York Trial Court Upholds Vaccination Requirement

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reports that a New York state trial judge in Seneca County has rejected a challenge by an Amish family to New York's requirements that students be vaccinated in order to attend public or private school. The suit claimed that the immunization requirement violates the protection of religious freedom set out in the state constitution. The court wrote in part:

the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution would yield to a valid exercise of the state’s police powers.

Juvenile Court Can Override Mother's Religious Objection To Vaccinations

In In re K. Y-B, (MD Ct. Special Appeals, Aug. 30, 2019), a Maryland appellate court upheld a Juvenile Court's order allowing the Baltimore City Department of Social Services to consent to the routine vaccinations of an infant in its custody, despite Muslim religious objections to vaccination expressed by the child's mother. The child, now seven moths old, was ordered into shelter care two days after his birth.  The parents had a long history of abuse and neglect of their other children. In a lengthy opinion, the court held:

[A]  parent is free to believe as she wishes, but she cannot act on her beliefs in such a way as to pose a serious danger to the child’s life or health or impair or endanger the child’s welfare....

[T]he juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the State’s compelling interest in protecting the health of the Child outweighs Mother’s belief that vaccination contravenes her faith.

Legal Newsline reports on the decision.

NY Court Rejects Challenge To Vaccination Exemption Repeal

In F.F. on behalf of her minor children v. State of New York, (Albany Cty. Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2019), a New York state trial court judge rejected a class action challenge to recently enacted New York legislation that repeals the religious exemption to vaccination requirements for school children. The repeal was enacted in response to a measles outbreak earlier this year. The suit was brought by 55 families. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their free exercise, equal protection or compelled speech claims. The court concluded that the vaccination law was a neutral law of general applicability, and that the repeal was not action showing hostility to religious belief. The court concluded that plaintiffs did have a colorable argument that elevated scrutiny might be required under the hybrid rights theory, but that even if that is the case the state had a compelling interest in repealing the exemption:

Protecting public health, and children's health in particular, through attainment of threshold inoculation levels for community immunity from communicable diseases is unquestionably a compelling state interest....

Gothamist reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Challenge To New York's Elimination of Religious Exemption From Vaccination Is Argued In Court

Media (such as Newsday, Gothamist, New York Law Journal) covered yesterday's oral arguments in a New York state trial court in a case challenging the constitutionality of New York's recent law that eliminated religious exemptions from vaccination requirements for school children. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a skeptic of vaccines, was one of the attorneys who argued the case for 55 families who are plaintiffs in the case.  They contend that the new law violates their religious freedom protections, and that legislators were motivated by hostility toward specific religious groups. The law was passed after an outbreak of measles in recent months. The state argued that the legislature was motivated by public health concerns.