Love v. State Dep't of Educ.
240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Senate Bill No. 277 (effective Jan. 1, 2016) repealed California's personal belief exemption to mandatory school‑entry immunization requirements, requiring specified childhood vaccines for children entering schools or advancing to 7th grade unless medically exempt or otherwise statutorily excluded.
- Plaintiffs (four parents, their children, and a nonprofit) challenged the law in state court asserting violations of substantive due process, privacy, and the right to public education; they also argued free exercise on appeal though it was not pleaded.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend; plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo and considered whether amendment would be futile.
- The court analyzed applicable standards (strict scrutiny vs. rational basis) and balanced individual liberty/privacy interests against the State’s public‑health interests in preventing disease and preserving herd immunity.
- The court relied on longstanding precedent upholding compulsory school vaccination laws and on legislative findings about measles outbreaks and community‑immunity thresholds to conclude the statute furthers compelling/legitimate public‑health interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — bodily autonomy and parental rights | SB 277 infringes bodily autonomy, conditions school attendance on surrendering medical decision‑making, and violates parental upbringing rights | Mandating vaccination for school attendance is within the State’s police power to protect public health and is justified by preventing contagious disease | Rejected; vaccination requirement (and removal of the personal‑belief exemption) does not violate substantive due process and survives scrutiny |
| Right to privacy (medical information & bodily integrity) | Law forces disclosure of medical status and intrudes on bodily integrity and medical decision‑making | Privacy interests are outweighed by the State’s compelling/legitimate interest in preventing disease; public‑health laws receive rational‑basis deference | Rejected; privacy claim fails because public‑health interest justifies the requirement |
| Right to attend public school | Conditioning free public education on vaccination imposes an unconstitutional burden and economic/medical costs on families | Legislature may condition school admission on vaccination to protect health; no suspect classification or unequal treatment implicated | Rejected; law does not violate right to attend school and is a valid exercise of legislative police power |
| Free exercise of religion | (Raised only on appeal) Eliminating personal‑belief exemptions burdens religious exercise | SB 277 is neutral and generally applicable public‑health legislation and does not violate free exercise | Rejected; amendment to add a free‑exercise claim would be futile — statute does not violate free exercise |
Key Cases Cited
- Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 (California 1890) (upheld school vaccination requirement as within police power)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (upheld state mandatory vaccination law under Due Process)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1922) (upheld vaccination requirement for school attendance against Due Process challenge)
- Brown v. Smith, 24 Cal.App.5th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (companion appellate decision rejecting similar constitutional challenges to SB 277)
- Whitlow v. California Dept. of Education, 203 F.Supp.3d 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2016) (federal court denying preliminary relief and upholding elimination of personal‑belief exemption)
- Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (Cal. 1971) (recognizes education as a fundamental interest; distinguished here because no suspect classification)
- French v. Davidson, 143 Cal. 658 (California 1904) (earlier decision affirming legislative power to condition school attendance on vaccination)