Lawyers: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Religious Exemptions a Big Win — But Decision Is ‘Far From’ Final

Rights & Freedoms | U.S.

6 hours ago

Originally posted by: Children's Health Defense

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered a big win for religious exemptions from school-based vaccine mandates — but more work lies ahead to ensure that parents who oppose vaccines on religious grounds can opt out of vaccinating their kids in order to send them to school, said lawyers who spoke today with The Defender.

There are still five states that don’t allow religious exemptions for school-based vaccine mandates: New York, California, Maine, Connecticut and West Virginia.

“Our hope is that this ruling will pave the way for religious exemptions to vaccine mandates across all 50 states next year,” said Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland, who formerly taught at Columbia Law School and the New York University School of Law.

Holland said:

“This is what CHD and thousands of parents have been fighting for: the right to refuse medical procedures that infringe upon our constitutional rights to religious freedom. We are proud to support those who brought this lawsuit against New York on behalf of children, parents and schools in the Amish community, and to stand up for all the children who are forced to be vaccinated every year despite religious objections.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that dismissed the New York lawsuit, Miller v. McDonald, and ruled that the lower court must reconsider the dismissal.

Attorney Aaron Siri filed the suit against New York’s education and health departments in June 2023.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit dismissed the suit in March, Siri and his colleagues asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Not only did the Supreme Court yesterday announce that it would hear the case, but the justices handed down a decision on the spot via a “summary disposition.” The disposition vacated the 2nd Circuit’s decision and instructed the 2nd Circuit to review the case again in light of a Supreme Court June ruling.

In its June ruling, in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court sided with parents who wanted to opt their kids out of LGBTQ-themed elementary school books due to their religious beliefs.

Although the Mahmoud case wasn’t about religious exemptions from vaccine mandates, the Supreme Court’s ruling on that case negated the 2nd Circuit’s legal arguments for denying the Miller plaintiffs’ right to a religious exemption, said attorney Sujata Gibson.

“We can think of this as a chess game,” Gibson said. “I believe the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud, and summary disposition on Miller, represent a sort of ‘checkmate.’ But we have remaining moves that need to be executed to get us over the finish line.”

New lawsuits will need to be filed and/or new laws will need to be passed to restore religious exemption rights in states that lack them, Gibson said.

‘Not a final decision. It’s far from it’

Monday’s Supreme Court decision is “cause for celebration” for anyone who believes in the right to have religious beliefs or to object to vaccination on that basis, said attorney John Coyle. “But it’s not a final decision. It’s far from it.”

Attorney Rick Jaffe agreed. The Supreme Court did not render a full decision on the merits of the Miller case after hearing oral arguments for over a year. The court only directed the 2nd Circuit to review the case again, in light of more recent law: the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud decision.

It’s conceivable that the 2nd Circuit could dismiss the Miller case again, even after taking the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mahmoud case into consideration, Jaffe said.

Lower courts have a lot of flexibility in how they interpret the law, so “the battle isn’t over,” Jaffe said. “Just because the Supreme Court issues a decision doesn’t mean that the lower courts automatically follow it.”

One of two things will happen when the 2nd Circuit reviews the Miller case, Coyle said.

Either the 2nd Circuit will change its decision in light of Mahmoud and issue an injunction that prevents the state of New York from fining the Amish $200 a day per student for not adhering to the state’s school vaccine policy.

Or the 2nd Circuit will look at the Mahmoud case and say, “No, this doesn’t change our decision.”

If the 2nd Circuit again dismisses the Miller case, its lawyers can again ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

That could be a good thing, Jaffe said — because so far the Supreme Court “didn’t really answer some of the core questions” about the constitutionality of denying religious exemptions.

‘This is the sign we all were looking for from the Supreme Court’

Jaffe predicted that a slew of new cases will soon be filed — and those cases will have a greater likelihood of succeeding, due to the signal the Supreme Court sent yesterday.

“This is the sign we all were looking for from the Supreme Court,” he said.

Jaffe said that in the past, he typically declined to take on cases that tried to reassert a person’s personal belief or religious rights to oppose vaccination. “My view is until the Supreme Court indicates it’s willing to do that, there’s no point.”

But now, such cases are more likely to succeed. Attorney Ray Flores agreed. He said the Supreme Court’s decision “will open the door for successful cases” in the handful of states that don’t permit religious exemptions.

“My ultimate preference would be for all states to accept personal/philosophical exemptions as well — that is true health freedom,” Flores added.

Court cases may be more effective than new bills

Health freedom advocates may now also have more steam for introducing bills that restore religious exemptions. However, given how some state legislatures are stacked with staunch vaccine supporters, lawsuits may be more effective at securing religious exemptions, Jaffe said.

“I think it’s going to have to be through the courts and they’re going to have to essentially challenge the constitutionality of the removal of the exemption.”

For instance, California’s Senate Bill No. 277, which took away personal belief and religious exemptions for school-based vaccine mandates, is now on “shaky legal ground,” said attorney Greg Glaser. The law is “likely to be struck down by lower courts soon,” he added.

Attorney Jonathan Marko agreed that now appears to be an opportune time to use the courts for securing religious exemptions. He said the Supreme Court’s decision Monday was part of a larger trend in the federal appellate courts.

Marko told The Defender:

“Clearly the trend is more freedom of religion, not less. More protections for people practicing religion, not less. More invalidation of laws — or holding them unconstitutional — that restrict individuals’ ability to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Attorney Chad Davenport, who represents New York families suing their school districts for denying their children’s medical exemptions, said the Supreme Court’s decision “clears the path to restore the religious rights of all parents.”

Related articles in The Defender