496 F.Supp.3d 744
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are parents and their minor (including medically fragile) children who were denied medical exemptions to New York school vaccination requirements and were excluded from school beginning in 2019–2020.
- Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and §504 Rehab Act claims), and moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction challenging DOH regulations that define when vaccination "may be detrimental to the child’s health."
- In 2019 New York repealed the non‑medical (religious) exemption; the DOH adopted emergency and then permanent regulations requiring physician certifications on a state form, referencing ACIP or other evidence‑based standards, allowing school review, and requiring annual reissuance.
- Plaintiffs mounted a facial constitutional challenge (Fourteenth Amendment: substantive due process, parental/informed‑consent rights, right to public education), seeking to enjoin enforcement of the regulations and permit children with physician certifications to attend school.
- The district court applied the heightened preliminary‑injunction approach for government action and analyzed claims under Jacobson/Zucht and traditional constitutional tests, held Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits, and denied the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm from school exclusion | Exclusion from school causes irreparable harm to children | Any harm is mitigated by Plaintiffs' delay; not dispositive without merits showing | Court assumed exclusion supports irreparable harm but denied injunction because Plaintiffs lack likelihood of success |
| Constitutional standard / burden on fundamental rights | Regs unduly burden fundamental parental, informed‑consent, and medical decision rights and should trigger strict scrutiny | Jacobson/Zucht apply; public‑health regulation reviewed under rational‑basis/Jacobson framework | Court found Jacobson framework appropriate and Plaintiffs unlikely to prevail on strict‑scrutiny or Jacobson review |
| Facial invalidity of DOH definition ("detrimental" ≈ ACIP) and removal of physician discretion | Definition unlawfully narrows medical exemptions and displaces treating physician judgment | Definition uses ACIP or other nationally recognized evidence‑based standards and is rationally related to public health | Court held definition is rational, grounded in national guidance, and not facially arbitrary or oppressive |
| Procedural burdens: school review, state form, annual reissuance | School principals may override physicians; form and annual reissuance are unduly burdensome | Schools may seek medical consultation; form is one page; annual reissuance predates 2019 and reflects temporary nature of many contraindications | Court held those procedures are rational and not arbitrary on their face; Plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success |
| Appropriateness of preliminary injunction given balances | Hardship to children favors injunction | Public‑health harms and lack of likelihood of success weigh against injunction | Even assuming hardships favor Plaintiffs, lack of likelihood of success defeats preliminary relief; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state vaccination authority; court may not override public‑health regulations unless arbitrary or plainly invading rights)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) (states may delegate broad discretion to local officials to enforce health regulations)
- Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (mandatory school‑vaccination requirements do not violate substantive due process)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental decisionmaking is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment)
- Bryant v. N.Y.S. Educ. Dep’t, 692 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2012) (right to public education is not a fundamental right; regulations affecting schooling reviewed for reasonable relation to legitimate government objectives)