Brown v. Smith
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (six parents) challenged California Senate Bill No. 277 (2015), which eliminated the personal‑beliefs (philosophical/religious) exemption to school immunization requirements and took effect Jan. 1, 2016.
- SB 277 retained medical exemptions and exemptions for certain home‑based/independent study students and phased in protections for pupils with prior personal‑beliefs exemptions until next grade spans.
- Plaintiffs sued the California Department of Public Health director seeking to halt enforcement, alleging violations of: free exercise (Cal. Const. art. I, § 4), right to attend school (art. IX, § 5), equal protection and due process (art. I, § 7), and Health & Safety Code § 24175(a) (informed consent/medical experiment).
- The trial court sustained the Department’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeal took judicial notice of legislative history and public‑health materials about vaccine safety/effectiveness and affirmed the dismissal, rejecting each constitutional and statutory claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free exercise of religion | SB 277 burdens religious and conscientious beliefs by removing personal‑beliefs exemption | State may require vaccination to protect public health; exemptions are discretionary, not constitutionally required | Claim fails; mandatory vaccination as school admission condition does not violate free exercise (even under strict scrutiny state interest is compelling) |
| Right to attend school (state constitution) | SB 277 infringes fundamental right to education by excluding unvaccinated children | Law is narrowly tailored to compelling interest in preventing disease; less‑restrictive alternatives inadequate | Claim fails; protecting public health through vaccination is compelling and removal of exemption is narrowly tailored |
| Equal protection | SB 277 discriminates by vaccination status and among student categories | Classifications are rational or involve non‑similarly situated groups; no suspect class | Claim fails; statute not class legislation and classifications are rationally related to public‑health objectives |
| Due process / void for vagueness | Legislative goal of "total immunization" and medical exemption standards are vague | Statutory language and medical exemption requirements give fair warning and are administrable | Claim fails; statute and medical exemption are not unconstitutionally vague |
| Health & Safety Code § 24175(a) (medical‑experiment claim) | Vaccines are "medical experiments," requiring informed consent | Vaccination is reasonably related to maintaining/improving subject and public health, not an experiment | Claim fails as legally and factually baseless |
Key Cases Cited
- Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 (Cal. 1890) (upholding school exclusion of unvaccinated children as within police power)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (state police power supports compulsory vaccination)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2011) (Vaccine Act preempts design‑defect suits; recognizes vaccination as a major public‑health achievement)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1922) (upholding school vaccination requirement under state power)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1944) (religious liberty does not include liberty to expose community/child to communicable disease)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (distinguishes compulsory school attendance issues from public‑health limits on parental rights)