Emily Dahl v. Bd. of Trs. of W. Mich. Univ., 15f4th728

Background

Western Michigan University adopted a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for student‑athletes, stating medical and religious exemptions would be considered “on an individual basis.”
Sixteen student‑athletes requested religious exemptions; the University either denied requests or failed to respond and barred them from participating in team activities while maintaining scholarships.
Plaintiffs sued, alleging, among other claims, violation of the Free Exercise Clause; the district court granted a preliminary injunction permitting plaintiffs to participate if they complied with masking and testing requirements.
The University asked the district court and then the Sixth Circuit to stay the injunction and district‑court proceedings pending appeal.
The Sixth Circuit denied the stay, concluding plaintiffs likely will succeed on their Free Exercise claim and that the other stay factors favored denying a stay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the vaccine policy burdens Free Exercise	The policy conditions playing on vaccination, forcing players to choose between faith and participation.	Playing college sports is not a "generally available benefit" protected by Free Exercise doctrine.	The policy burdens plaintiffs: they are otherwise eligible athletes and were coerced to abandon sincere religious beliefs.
Whether the policy is neutral and generally applicable	The policy creates a discretionary, individualized exemption process, so it is not generally applicable.	The policy was neutral in practice because no unvaccinated athletes were allowed to participate.	The policy is not generally applicable because it formally provides individualized exemption procedures regardless of how it was executed.
Standard of review and narrow tailoring	Strict scrutiny applies and the University must show a compelling interest narrowly tailored to deny exemptions.	The University argued its policy survives rational‑basis review and that vaccination is essential for public health.	Strict scrutiny applies; although protecting public health is compelling, the University failed to show its denial of exemptions was narrowly tailored.
Whether a stay pending appeal is warranted	Plaintiffs: likely succeed on the merits; irreparable constitutional harm; public interest favors protecting rights.	Defendants: participation by unvaccinated athletes risks COVID spread, forfeits, and reputational/financial harm, justifying a stay.	Stay denied: likelihood of success on merits is strong and injunction limited (16 plaintiffs with masking/testing), so the balance of harms and public interest favor plaintiffs.

Key Cases Cited

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (a regime allowing individualized exemptions is not generally applicable and triggers strict scrutiny)
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) (denying an otherwise available government benefit because of religion burdens Free Exercise)
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (denial of benefits for religiously motivated conduct triggers compelling‑interest strict scrutiny)
Emp. Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws need not satisfy strict scrutiny)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religion or not generally applicable require strict scrutiny)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (public health can be a compelling interest, but measures must be narrowly tailored)
Monclova Christian Acad. v. Toledo‑Lucas Cnty. Health Dep’t, 984 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2020) (preliminary injunctions in constitutional cases often turn on likelihood of success on the merits)
Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2020) (likelihood of success on the merits can be the determinative factor for stays)
Crookston v. Johnson, 841 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2016) (four‑factor test governing stays pending appeal)