Does v. Mills, 21A90

Background

Maine adopted a COVID‑19 vaccine mandate for certain healthcare workers that contains no religious‑belief exemption.
Plaintiffs are a physician and other frontline healthcare workers who object on religious grounds to vaccines tied (in their view) to aborted‑fetal cell lines; one plaintiff has already lost employment; others face imminent job or practice loss.
Maine permits individualized medical exemptions via a written note from a provider but declines to grant religious exemptions or equivalent accommodations (e.g., testing, PPE) to religious objectors.
The First Circuit upheld the rule as neutral and generally applicable; the Supreme Court denied the applicants’ request for emergency injunctive relief, with Justice Barrett concurring in the denial and Justice Gorsuch dissenting.
Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argues the mandate triggers strict scrutiny because it (1) creates individualized exemptions favoring secular reasons and (2) treats comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise, and that Maine fails the least‑restrictive‑means test.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the vaccine rule qualify as neutral and generally applicable under Free Exercise doctrine?	Maine’s rule is not neutral/generally applicable because it allows individualized medical exemptions but bars religious exemptions; comparable secular activities are treated better.	The mandate is a neutral public‑health rule aimed at protecting patients and staff.	Supreme Court denied emergency relief without resolving merits; Gorsuch would hold strict scrutiny applies and applicants likely to succeed.
If strict scrutiny applies, does Maine show the mandate is narrowly tailored/least restrictive means?	Even if protecting public health is compelling, Maine hasn’t shown denying religious exemptions is necessary—medical exemptions, high facility vaccination rates, testing/PPE are less restrictive alternatives.	The mandate (and its 90% target) is necessary to protect patients, staff, and healthcare capacity.	Majority did not decide; Gorsuch would find Maine fails least‑restrictive‑means and applicants likely to prevail.
Do plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm and does the public interest favor injunctive relief?	Loss of First Amendment freedom and of livelihood is irreparable; granting religious exemptions poses no greater public‑health risk than medical exemptions.	Enjoining the mandate would harm public health and healthcare delivery.	Court denied the application; Gorsuch would conclude irreparable harm exists and public interest favors injunction.
Should the Court grant emergency extraordinary relief given this is the first case to address these questions?	Urgency and imminent job losses justify interim relief to preserve plaintiffs’ rights pending review.	The Court should exercise discretion and avoid treating emergency docket as a vehicle for merits preview.	The Court (per curiam) denied relief; Justice Barrett concurred, stressing discretionary reasons against granting first‑to‑address relief.

Key Cases Cited

Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (establishes neutrality and general applicability test for Free Exercise)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws creating individualized exemptions or targeting religion trigger strict scrutiny)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (protection for sincere religious exercise and hostility toward religion invalidates government action)
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (refusal to apply neutral rules to religious actors can trigger heightened review)
Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (comparable secular activity treated more favorably than religion defeats general applicability)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (recognizes stemming COVID‑19 as a compelling interest in emergency context but reviews restrictions on religious exercise)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020) (caution against assuming better behavior from secular objectors than religious ones)
Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (10th Cir. 2014) (critique of measuring individual rights against generalized public‑safety rationales)