557 F.Supp.3d 304
D. Mass.2021Background
- UMass Lowell and UMass Boston announced (April 2021) vaccine requirements for students accessing campus for Fall 2021, with medical, disability, and religious exemptions available.
- Plaintiffs are students: Harris (UMass Lowell) and Cluett (UMass Boston); both unvaccinated. Cluett requested a religious exemption which was denied after review and appeal.
- Plaintiffs sued state defendants (UMass campuses and officials) alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural and substantive due process, free exercise) and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the Vaccine Policy; Cluett also asserted state-law and RFRA claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and opposed the preliminary injunction; plaintiffs conceded dismissal as to the UMass entities under Eleventh Amendment principles.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction and granted the motion to dismiss all federal claims; it held RFRA/state-law claims barred or inapplicable and dismissed duplicative § 1983 count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment: Can plaintiffs sue UMass campuses in federal court? | Plaintiffs initially sued campuses but conceded dismissal of state entities. | UMass is an arm of the state and immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. | Claims against UMass Lowell and UMass Boston dismissed. |
| Procedural due process: Did Vaccine Policy deprive students of protected interest without adequate process? | Harris/Cluett: policy forces vaccination or loss of UMass education. | Policy is a generally applicable, prospective rule; unvaccinated students may remain enrolled and take online classes. | No plausible procedural due process violation; publication of policy provides constitutionally adequate process. |
| Substantive due process: Does the policy infringe a fundamental right? | Policy infringes liberty interests (education/body integrity). | Vaccination requirements fall within state police power; policy is rationally related to public-health goals. | No fundamental-right violation; Jacobson-style deference applies and policy is rationally related to public health. |
| Religious exemption / Free Exercise / RFRA / state-law claims (Cluett) | Cluett: denial of religious exemption violated RFRA, Free Exercise, and state law. | RFRA does not apply to states; Eleventh Amendment bars state-law claims against state officials; university need not provide exemptions and did not administer policy discriminatorily. | RFRA/state-law claims unavailable; Free Exercise claim fails on pleadings (no discriminatory administration shown). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state authority to mandate vaccination and articulating deferential standard for public-health measures)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) (affirming school-entry vaccination requirements as within state police power)
- Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (recognizing limits on public-health measures but acknowledging Jacobson's continuing relevance)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits federal injunctive relief against state officials for federal constitutional violations)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (RFRA cannot be applied to the states in a manner exceeding Congress's enforcement powers)
- O'Neill v. Baker, 210 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2000) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies and arms of the state)
- Garcia-Rubiera v. Fortuño, 665 F.3d 261 (1st Cir. 2011) (distinguishing legislative rules from adjudications for due process purposes)
- Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021) (upholding university vaccine requirement under deferential public-health review)