Supreme Court Term Opens Monday with Several Cases of Interest on Its Docket

The U.S. Supreme Court's fall term opens tomorrow, Oct. 6. There are a number of cases on the Court's Docket for this term that are of interest to readers of Religion Clause Blog. Here are the cases with links to their case pages on SCOTUSblog:

Chiles v. Salazar (to be argued on Oct. 7). Is Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors constitutional.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, (to be argued Nov. 10, 2025). Can a government official be sued in his individual capacity for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, (argument date not yet set). Can a faith-based pregnancy resource center that has been served with a state investigatory subpoena challenge the subpoena on free speech grounds in federal court, or must the challenge be adjudicated in state court.

Little v. Hecox, (argument date not yet set). West Virgina v. B.J.P, (argument date not yet set). Do laws that bar transgender women from participating on women's sports teams in public schools and colleges violate Title IX or the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, (argument date not yet set). Can a street preacher can sue to enjoin a city ordinance that limits demonstrations to a designated area within three hours of an event at the city's amphitheater, or would that undermine his prior state conviction for violating the ordinance.

______________

There are also two cases of interest on the Court's Emergency Docket (sometimes called its "Shadow Docket") These cases are usually decided without full briefing and oral argument. 

Trump v. Orr. Asks the Supreme Court should stay a district court injunction that requires the State Department to allow passport applicants to select the sex designation that will appear on their passports. Applicants have the choice of "M", "F", or "X", regardless of their biological sex.

We the Patriots USA v. Ventura Unified School District. Asks the Supreme Court to issue an injunction allowing school children whose parents object to vaccines on religious grounds to attend school while challenges to the absence of religious exemptions from school vaccine mandates are being appealed.

Kansas Supreme Court: Expanded Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate Is Not in Conflict with Title VII

In Powerback Rehabilitation, LLC v. Kansas Department of Labor, (KS Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2025), the Kansas Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision, upheld a Kansas  statute (K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663) that requires employers to grant religious exemptions from any Covid vaccine mandate without inquiring into the sincerity of an employee's asserted religious belief. Powerback was subject to federal Medicaid rules that required it to impose a Covid vaccine mandate on its employees. Medicaid incorporated into its rules federal Title VII standards which allow employers to question the sincerity of an employee's religious belief. The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's holding that the Kansas statute was pre-empted by federal law. The Kansas Supreme Court said in part:

Powerback's argument is simple and alluring at first blush. It simply points out that "federal law contemplates an inquiry into the sincerity of an employee's purported religious beliefs. [K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663] specifically disallows this same inquiry. The Vaccine Act thus forces Powerback to make an impossible decision between compliance with Kansas law or compliance with federal law." But this framing of the problem incorporates a deft sleight-of-hand. Because federal "contemplation" is not a mandate. That is, nowhere in the federal regulations ... is an employer subject to the Vaccine Mandate required to inquire into the sincerity of an employee's religious beliefs. At most, the employer is permitted to make this inquiry....

Thus, Powerback could have granted a religious exemption to Keeran that was consistent with both Title VII (as incorporated into the Vaccine Mandate) and with K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 by simply not inquiring into Keeran's religious sincerity.

The dissent rejects this conclusion on the grounds that Title VII's allowance of what the dissent characterizes as a "meaningful interactive process with the employee" is actually a "federally granted right" which state law cannot "nullify" or "forbid" an employer from exercising.... If this were true, the dissent would be correct. But it is not true. Indeed, the dissent has dramatically misunderstood—and in fact inverted— Title VII. The statutory framework adopted by Congress in Title VII does not define or create any genuine "rights" in employers. It is instead entirely about protecting and preserving the rights of employees not to be discriminated against....

Justice Stanridge, joined by Justice Rosen, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Under longstanding Supremacy Clause doctrine, state law must yield where compliance with both state and federal law is impossible, or where state law frustrates Congress' objectives. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 fails on both counts....

Title VII embodies a carefully calibrated framework, one that protects religious exercise while preserving the ability of employers to safeguard legitimate operational and safety interests. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is incompatible with that framework in two respects. It makes compliance with both state and federal law impossible, and it obstructs the objectives of Congress by replacing a balanced system with one of absolute deference. Either defect alone is sufficient for preemption; together, they leave no room for doubt. Because Kansas has attempted to supplant federal law with a contradictory regime, I would hold K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663 is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

Kansas City Star reports on the decision.

9th Circuit: Employee's Objection to Covid Vaccine Accommodation Was Not Religious

 In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, (9th Cir., Sept. 23, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit under Title VII and a parallel Oregon statute brought by Sherry Detwiler, the medical center's Director of Health Information. Detwiler initially objected on religious grounds to her employer's Covid vaccine requirement. She was granted an exemption, conditioned, in part, on her having weekly antigen testing. She objected to that accommodation because she believed the ethylene oxide used in obtaining a nasal swab for the test was carcinogenic. She told her employer in part:

I have asked God for direction regarding the current COVID testing requirement. As I have prayed about what I should do, the Holy Spirit has moved on my heart and conscience that I must not participate in COVID testing that causes harm. If I were to go against the moving of the Holy Spirit, I would be sinning and jeopardizing my relationship with God and violating my conscience . . .

As a Christian protecting my body from defilement according to God’s law, I invoke my religious right to refuse any testing which would alter my DNA and has been proven to cause cancer. I find testing with carcinogens and chemical waste to be in direct conflict with my Christian duty to protect my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Detwiler asked instead either for saliva testing or remote work. The majority said in part:

The Ninth Circuit has not yet endorsed a test for determining the nature, whether religious or secular, of a belief underlying a Title VII claim....

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need not establish her belief is consistent, widely held, or even rational.  However, a complaint must connect the requested exemption with a truly religious principle.  Invocations of broad, religious tenets cannot, on their own, convert a secular preference into a religious conviction....

The District Court acknowledged the sincerity and religiosity of Detwiler’s belief in her body as a temple and even the implied prohibition on ingesting harmful substances.  Therefore, at issue is Detwiler’s belief that the testing swab is harmful, and specifically that EtO is a carcinogen.  This belief is personal and secular, premised on her interpretation of medical research.  In essence, Detwiler labels a personal judgment based on science as a direct product of her general religious tenet.  Yet, her alarm about the test swab is far too attenuated from the broad principle to treat the two as part of a single belief....

Invocation of prayer, without more, is still insufficient to elevate personal medical judgments to the level of religious significance.... Indeed, crediting every secular objection bolstered by a minimal reference to prayer as religious “would amount to a blanket privilege and a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted obligations.” 

Judge VanDyke filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

By affirming the district court, the majority creates a circuit split.  When faced with the question of whether religious objections to COVID-19 policies mirroring Detwiler’s objection were sufficiently pled, our sister circuits have consistently answered in the affirmative.... 

To work well, the majority’s mode of analysis must be capable of objective, impartial, and consistent application.  If not, such analysis opens wide the door to the discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs.  Those beliefs christened by a judge as “truly religious” will be protected, and those condemned as too mixed with “secular” beliefs will be left unprotected.  The majority’s approach requires the impossible—we are judges, not theologians or philosophers.  Judges are ill equipped to parse mixed claims into the “truly religious” and “purely secular” silos that the majority purports to discern....

Salem Reporter reports on the decision. 

9th Circuit Upholds Fire Department's Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, (9th Cir., Sept. 2, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by eight firefighters that the Snohomish fire department violated Title VII and Washington state law by refusing to accommodate their requests for religious exemptions from the state's Covid vaccine mandate for all healthcare providers. The court said in part:

SRFR has pointed to several substantial costs of accommodating Plaintiff’s requested vaccine exemption— the health and safety of its own firefighters and the public, the large number of firefighters seeking accommodations, the risk to its operations and the cost of widespread absences, the potential loss of a lucrative contract with DOC, and the risk of additional liability.  SRFR also provided unrebutted medical evidence that showed the inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed accommodation.  All of this amounts to a showing that SRFR could not reasonably have accommodated Plaintiffs without undue hardship in October 2021....

We cannot judge SRFR by the responses taken by other fire departments....  Nor can we judge SRFR with the clarity of hindsight or the benefit of post-pandemic debates over what measured responses frontline employers should have taken.  We must consider the costs faced by SRFR in October 2021, not today.... [A]t the time the Governor issued the Proclamation, “COVID-19 cases were spiking....  The pandemic forced the State of Washington to make decisions quickly and with limited information.  In so doing, SRFR relied on the scientific evidence and COVID data then available and acted in the best interests of the community....

HHS Pressures West Virginia To Implement Religious Exemptions from Compulsory School Vaccination Law

 As reported by Med Page Today, the Department of Health and Human Services is pressuring the state of West Virginia to recognize religious exemptions from the state's compulsory public school vaccination requirements. In January of this year, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued an Executive Order (full text) instructing state officials to create a procedure for parents to obtain religious or conscience exemptions, taking the position that this is required by West Virginia's Equal Protection for Religion Act. The compulsory immunization law only provides for medical exemptions, and legislative attempts to amend it have failed. Last week, the federal Health and Human Services Department took steps to support the Governor's position. In a letter dated Aug. 21, 2025 (full text) directed to West Virginia Health Departments participating in the federal Vaccines for Children Program (VCP), the HHS Office of Civil Rights said in part:

Providers participating in the VCP must comply “with applicable State law, including any such law relating to any religious or other exemption.” By specifically mandating that a State’s plan for administering Medicaid must respect State laws regarding religious exemptions, Congress recognized the importance of Americans’ religious convictions regarding vaccines and laws protecting such....

On January 14, 2025, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey issued Executive Order 7-25.... The Governor’s interpretation of EPRA was recently affirmed by Judge Froble of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County...

West Virginia is a participant in the VCP6 and receives $1.37 billion from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services each year as the federal Medicaid contribution. Therefore, West Virginia is obligated to ensure that its VCP providers comply with applicable state laws like EPRA, which requires recognition of religious exemptions from West Virginia’s Compulsory Vaccination Law. 

On Aug. 25, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. posted a message on X urging the state legislature to support the Governor's position, and saying in part:

...  At @HHSgov, we will enforce conscience protections and defend every family’s right to make informed health decisions.

5th Circuit: Anti-Vax Belief in Bodily Autonomy Can Support Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim

In Wright v. Honeywell International, Inc., (5th Cir., Aug. 5, 2025), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination suit brought by a dock operator who in 2022 refused to comply with Honeywell's Covid vaccine mandate. Honeywell refused to grant plaintiff a religious exemption on the ground that he did not identify a sincerely held religious belief as the basis for his refusal. The court said in part:

Wright sought a religious exemption from the vaccination policy, citing on his exemption request form his belief that “our creator gave us this gift to choose and decide for ourselves,” and also that it is “in our constitution no man should be forced to do something he . . . is not comfortable with.”  Wright is a Baptist Christian.  He explained that his religion does not “prevent[]” him from receiving the vaccine, “but cert[ai]n passages le[ad him] to feel very strongly about” his decision.  Wright also attested on his exemption request form that he “didn[’]t like the respon[s]e [his] body had” to a tetanus vaccine in 2015.  And he stated that this was the first time that he had sought a religious exemption from a mandatory vaccine. 

Wright also submitted Honeywell’s required third-party attestation of his religious beliefs, completed by his daughter.  Citing scripture, his daughter explained, “It is in our belief that humans should only use things that are created of the earth by God.  We believe the vaccine is a claim of the mark of the beast[;] it is man made and goes against our religion.”...

“Bona fide religious beliefs include ‘moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.’”...

Wright’s evidence demonstrates a “moral or ethical” belief in bodily autonomy and freedom to choose what to put in his body.... The fact that he gave additional reasons for his vaccine refusal does not show that his belief is “merely a preferred practice.”...  Instead, it simply shows that his vaccine refusal is grounded on both religious and non-religious reasons.  Furthermore, the inquiry on this prong is not “whether [Wright’s specific] belief is a true religious tenet” of the Baptist faith, but rather whether the belief is, “in his own scheme of things, religious.”

Cert. Filed In Challenge to Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Kane v. City of New York. (Sup. Ct., cert. filed 7/21/2025). In the case, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of petitioners' applications for religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed by the City of New York on public school teachers and staff. (See prior posting.) The certiorari petition seeking Supreme Court review of the decision describes the question presented in part as follows:

After the pandemic, Respondents issued a vaccine mandate for public-education employees. It exempted “Christian Scientists” and others affiliated with “recognized” religions that “publicly” opposed vaccination. But it refused accommodation for anyone with “personal” religious beliefs or anyone whose faith leader—like Pope Francis— had publicly endorsed the vaccine. 

... In sum, the Second Circuit approved a discretionary religious-accommodation scheme that disfavors personal religion.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Mass. Top Court Says Rastafarian Parents Can Bar Vaccination of Their Child Who Is In Temporary State Custody

In Care and Protection of Eve, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., May 15, 2025), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Department of Children and Families could not vaccinate a child in its temporary custody over the religious objections of the child's parents. The Department was granted emergency custody of the child two days after she was born following incidents of domestic violence by the husband against his wife. The couple's three other children had previously been removed because of domestic violence. They are being raised by a relative. At the custody hearing, the parents testified that their Rastafarian religious beliefs were to avoid Western medicine, including vaccines. The lower court held that the child's best interests outweighed the parents' religious beliefs. Massachusetts' highest court reversed the trial court's order that would have allowed vaccination. The Supreme Judicial Court said in part:

Parents who have temporarily lost custody of their child retain a constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of the child.  When they object to vaccinations of their child on religious grounds, the department must demonstrate that allowing that child to remain unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department's compelling interest in the vaccinations.  As the Commonwealth allows religious exemptions from vaccination for parents who have not lost temporary custody of their children and the department has not demonstrated a consistent application of the vaccination requirement for children within its custody, even as between this child and her siblings, the department has not demonstrated that leaving this child unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department's compelling interests.

West Virginia Governor Tells Schools to Provide Religious and Philosophical Exemptions from Vaccine Requirements

Last week, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey released a letter (full text) addressed to parents, students and school officials reaffirming that his Executive Order 7-25 is still in effect. The Executive Order issued last January provides for religious and conscientious exemptions for students from compulsory school immunization requirements.  He based the Order on the provisions of the state's Equal Protection for Religion Act of 2023. The Governor's recent letter, issued in light of the fact that the state legislature has not taken action on the matter, sets out a procedure for parents to use in applying for a religious or philosophical exemption. The governor's office also issued a press release summarizing the letter. The Inter-Mountain reports on the Governor's action.

Employees' Suit Against School Board for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Moves Ahead

Decisions in suits by former employees who were denied religious exemptions from employer Covid vaccine mandates continue to be handed down by the courts.  Here is a recent example:

In Brandon v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, (ED MO, May 8, 2025), a Missouri federal district court in a 76-page opinion refused to dismiss 16 employees' free exercise, equal protection, Title VII and state human rights act claims against the St. Louis school board. However, damage claims against the superintendent and the chief human resource officer were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Plaintiffs all had requested religious exemptions from the Board's Covid vaccine mandate. The Board received 189 requests for religious exemptions from its 3500 employees. None of the requests were granted. The board granted between 40 and 50 disability and medical exemptions. The court said in part:

Defendants have failed to meet their initial summary-judgment burden of showing that no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiffs’ sincere religious beliefs....

... [T]he very providing of exemptions rendered the contract not generally applicable because it “‘invite[d]’ the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy [were] worthy of solicitude.”...  For these reasons, the Court holds that the strict-scrutiny standard governs here....

Defendants point to three interests that Policy 4624 purportedly served: (1) education, (2) stemming the spread of COVID-19, and (3) promoting “the health, safety, and general welfare of students.”...

Defendants argue that Policy 4624 was necessary to providing “children of any and all backgrounds safe access to education, social mobility, and athletic, cultural[,] and social development.”...  The Court agrees that these interests are compelling. ...

But the Court disagrees that  Defendants have satisfied their summary-judgment burden and proven that Policy 4624 was narrowly tailored to serve those interests....

... [T]he Board could have granted every request for religious exemption, while still granting all the disability and medical exemptions that it granted, and achieved a total employee vaccination rate of between 93.1%  ... and 93.4%.....

In sum, the record at a minimum strongly indicates that the Board denied all religious-exemption requests wholesale, and Plaintiffs thus received vastly different treatment than their comparators did....

Plaintiffs marshal evidence that the Board denied Plaintiffs’ religious-exemption requests because the Board thought that the religious-exemption requests were less important than other exemption requests. With this evidence, Plaintiffs more than show that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Defendants unlawfully intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ protected religious beliefs....

3rd Circuit Rejects Title VII Claim by ER Doctor Who Was Denied Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Bushra v. Main Line Health, Inc., (3d Cir., April 10, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII suit brought by an emergency room physician who was denied a religious exemption from his hospital's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Dr. Bushra’s arguments on appeal largely challenge the District Court’s determination that MLH established the undue hardship defense to his religious discrimination claims. ...

MLH provided unrebutted expert testimony that unvaccinated healthcare workers, like Dr. Bushra, presented an increased risk of transmitting COVID-19 to others, particularly when they interacted with vulnerable groups.... [P]atients and employees at MLH died from COVID-19, and the on-site spread of this serious infectious disease compromised MLH’s mission and ability to care for sick patients, and it jeopardized the health and efficacy of its employees and staff.  MLH’s expert additionally testified, contrary to Dr. Bushra’s assertion, that alternative infection control strategies, such as frequent testing and masking, were not sufficient to prevent transmission....

As MLH has presented substantial evidence of undue hardship, and Dr. Bushra has not provided any “actual evidence in the record on which a jury could decide an issue of fact [his] way,” we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

Court Upholds California's Repeal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Vaccination Mandate

 In Royce v. Pan, (SD CA, March 17, 2025), a California federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to California's removal of the "personal belief" exemption from the state's compulsory school vaccination requirements. The court rejected arguments that the repeal of the exemption evidenced hostility to religion and that the law is not generally applicable because it exempts comparable secular activity.  The court said in part:

First, SB 277 did not specifically repeal a religious exemption.  Rather, it repealed a general personal belief exemption that was secular and neutral on its face.  Repeal of a secular exemption does not demonstrate hostility towards any religion or religious practice.  Second, even if SB 277 could be characterized as repealing a religious exemption, repealing a prior religious exemption is not hostile towards religion per se....

Plaintiffs argue that SB 277 is substantially underinclusive and treats secular activity more favorably than religious exercise by eliminating exemptions for religious reasons but permitting secular exemptions that undermine the State’s interest in a similar way.....  In particular, Plaintiffs highlight medical exemptions, exemptions for home schooled children and children enrolled in independent student programs, exemptions for students who qualify for IEPs, exemptions for students over 18 years of age, and conditional enrollment for migrant, homeless, foster, and military children.....

The court concluded that none of these exemptions are comparable to a religious exemption and that rational basis review applies because the law is neutral and generally applicable.

2nd Circuit Rejects Amish Challenge to Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccine Requirements

In Miller v. McDonald, (2d Cir., March 3, 2025), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York state's removal of a religious belief exemption from its school immunization law did not violate the 1st Amendment free exercise rights of Amish parents or Amish schools. The court held that the public health law is neutral on its face and its legislative history does not reveal an anti-religious bias. It also rejected plaintiffs' contention that the law is not generally applicable, saying in part:

Plaintiffs contend that exempting students for medical reasons treats comparable secular conduct more favorably than religious beliefs.....

Repealing the religious exemption decreases “to the greatest extent medically possible” the number of unvaccinated students and thus the risk of disease; maintaining the medical exemption allows “the small proportion of students” who medically “cannot be vaccinated” to avoid the health consequences that “taking a particular vaccine would inflict.” ...  Exempting religious objectors, however, detracts from that interest.  Religious exemptions increase “the risk of transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases among vaccinated and unvaccinated students alike.”...   

In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that § 2164 is anything but neutral and generally applicable.  The district court therefore did not err in applying rational basis review. As noted, Plaintiffs have conceded that the law satisfies rational basis review....

[Plaintiffs] claim that the school immunization law mandates two impossible options: inject their children with vaccines, forcing conduct against their religious beliefs, or forego educating their children in a group setting, requiring them to sacrifice a central religious practice.  True, Plaintiffs have shown that § 2164 burdens their religious beliefs and practices; but those burdens are not equivalent to the existential threat the Amish faced in Yoder.  Unlike in Yoder, compliance with § 2164 would not forcibly remove Amish children from their community at the expense of the Amish faith or the Amish way of life. 

Moreover, Yoder’s holding is limited by the state’s interest in protecting public health....

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

Kansas Court Says Statute Sets Low Threshold for Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In St. Luke's Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, (KS App., Jan. 17, 2025), a Kansas state appeals court held that under a Kansas statute, an employee's request for a religious exemption from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate does not require as much proof as the trial court in the case demanded.  The appeals court said in part:

The statute does not require the employee to articulate a basis for their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor does it require the employee to provide written evidence of those religious beliefs, as the district court held Glean was required to do. It only requires the employee to explain in a written statement that complying with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, which Glean did. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(a). And, in fact, the statute specifies:  "An employer shall grant an exemption requested in accordance with this section based on sincerely held religious beliefs without inquiring into the sincerity of the request." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 44-663(b)....

Not only did she [employee Sheryl Glean] explain that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine is based on her religious views—as in she believes the vaccine may cause harm to her body—she clarified the religious basis for her concern (or why she believes getting the vaccine would be wrong) when she said since she became a Christian she believes the Bible tells her that her body is holy. See 1 Corinthians 6:19-20..... Glean further evidenced the religiosity of her beliefs when she stated that she had discussed her concerns about getting the vaccine with the pastor from her church. Glean's invocation of both the Bible and her pastor as sources of guidance in this matter evidence the religiosity of her beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

1st Circuit Accepts Employer's Undue Hardship Defense for Denying Religious Exemption from Covid Vaccination

In Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc., (1st Cir., Jan. 17, 2025), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a Title VII lawsuit brought by a TV news photographer who asserted religious objections to his employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The employer refused to provide an accommodation, asserting that it would impose an undue hardship. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim on the ground that his objection was not religious but instead reflected "a personal medical judgment about the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination" expressed in religious language. On appeal, the 1st Circuit held that it did not have to reach the issue of whether plaintiff's objections were religious because defendant had adequately carried its undue hardship defense. The court said in part:

Rodrique contends that Hearst has not proffered admissible evidence showing that the vaccine actually protects against the transmission of COVID-19.  As Rodrique frames the issue, if the vaccine does not reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission -- as opposed to merely mitigating symptoms, for example -- then Hearst suffers no undue hardship by granting him an exemption.  And in Rodrique's view, only expert testimony can support this conclusion.,,,  

,,, [W]e disagree with Rodrique that Hearst did not provide legally sufficient evidence....  Because ... Hearst relied "on the objective, scientific information available to [it]," with particular attention to "the views of public health authorities," we hold that it acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees.

Business Insurance reports on the decision.

4th Circuit: Covid Vaccine Religious Accommodation Suit Should Not Have Been Dismissed

 In Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services, (4th Cir., Jan. 7, 2025), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Title VII and state law claims by a former registered nurse who was denied a religious exemption or accommodation from her employer's Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Barnett has sufficiently alleged her beliefs are religious in nature.  Specifically, Barnett alleged, amongst other things:  (1) “it would be sinful for her to engage with a product such as the vaccination after having been instructed by God to abstain from it”; (2) her “religious reasons for declining the covid vaccinations. . . were based on her ‘study and understanding of the Bible and personally directed by the true and living God’”; and (3) receiving the vaccine would be sinning against her body, which is a temple of God, and against God himself....  At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to show that Barnett’s “belief is an essential part of a religious faith” that “must be given great weight[,]” ... and are plausibly connected with her refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

4th Circuit: Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply in Challenge to No Religious Exemption in Vaccination Law

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.”

EEOC Sues Employer for Refusal to Grant Religious Accommodation to Covid Vaccine Mandate

The EEOC announced yesterday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against the North Carolina-based Rex Healthcare, Inc. for refusing to grant a religious accommodation to an employee who objected to receiving the Covid vaccination.  According to the EEOC:

[I]n 2021 Rex Healthcare implemented a policy mandating that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination unless they were granted an exemption because of their religious beliefs or a disability. The charging party in the EEOC’s suit, who worked remotely, requested a religious exemption in accordance with the policy. Even though the employee had previously been granted an exemption from being required to take the flu vaccination based on her religious beliefs, the request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination was denied.

The employee submitted multiple follow up requests with additional explanations of her religious beliefs in support of her request. Despite the employee articulating a sincerely held religious belief, Rex Healthcare denied the employee’s accommodation requests and subsequently fired her for failing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Hospital Employee's Vaccine Objections Were Religious

In Lavelle-Hayden v. Employment Dept., (OR App., Dec. 18, 2024), an Oregon state appellate court held that a hospital respiratory therapist who was denied a religious exemption from the hospital's Covid vaccine requirement should receive unemployment benefits. It held that the state Employment Appeals Board's (EAB) conclusion that the employee's objection to the Covid vaccine was secular or personal in nature, rather than religious, was not supported by substantial evidence. The court said in part:

First, the EAB appears to have overlooked the Supreme Court’s injunction that tribunals ordinarily must refrain from assessing the plausibility of a claim of religious belief, and to have read the record with unreasonable parsimony in view of that standard....

Second, the EAB drew unreasonable inferences from the fact that claimant’s church declined to provide her a letter in support of her exemption request. The EAB inferred that “the fact that claimant’s own religious leader refused to provide a letter weighs to some extent against finding that claimant’s opposition to taking the vaccine was rooted in religion.” The EAB also inferred that the fact “that the leader told claimant it might be ‘too political to get involved’ supports an inference that when claimant asked for the letter, the religious leader regarded claimant’s objection to receiving a vaccine to be based on her political beliefs, not religion.”... But that reasoning ... presupposes that one’s religious beliefs and political beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive....

... [T]here is no basis on which to sustain the denial of benefits that is consistent with the evidence and Free Exercise Clause.