In West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom v. Christiansen, (4th Cir., Dec. 31, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a West Virginia federal district court erred in applying the Pullman abstention doctrine in a suit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia's vaccine mandate for school children. Plaintiffs contended that the absence of a religious exemption in the mandate violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The majority said in part:
Pullman abstention is typically reserved for a situation where the state law being presented is unclear and could be interpreted in a way that avoids the federal constitutional issue.... And Pullman abstention is not applicable if the state law is not subject to an interpretation that would render unnecessary the adjudication of a federal constitutional question....
... [T]he only state law presented for decision here is the Vaccination Mandate. On the other hand, the only state law identified as being unclear is the recently adopted [Equal Protection for Religion Act]. And the Plaintiffs are not challenging the Vaccination Mandate under EPRA. Rather, the Plaintiffs pursue their Free Exercise claim solely under the Free Exercise Clause....
... “[A]bstention cannot be ordered simply to give state courts the first opportunity to vindicate the federal claim.”
Judge Berner filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:
In several cases ..., this court and the Supreme Court have found abstention proper because the challenged law’s relationship with a different state law or constitutional provision was unsettled....
Because the relationship between the Vaccination Mandate and the EPRA is unsettled, this case satisfies the first Pullman requirement.
This case also meets the second Pullman precondition.... There is no requirement that the resolution of the state law issue necessarily moot the federal constitutional issue. Instead, it is enough that questions of state law “may dispose of the case and avoid the need for deciding the constitutional question.”
