566 F.Supp.3d 34
D. Me.2021Background:
- Plaintiffs: nine named individuals (eight healthcare workers and one provider) employed at Maine "designated healthcare facilities" seek a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Maine’s August 12, 2021 emergency rule requiring COVID-19 vaccination for such employees.
- The Rule required employees to receive a final vaccine dose by Sept. 17, 2021 (enforcement later deferred to Oct. 29, 2021 to allow compliance through Oct. 15); plaintiffs face termination or loss of license for noncompliance.
- Plaintiffs sincerely assert religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines based on fetal-cell-line origins; the State does not contest sincerity for purposes of the PI motion.
- Legislative context: 22 M.R.S.A. § 802 was amended in 2019 to remove religious and philosophical exemptions for mandated vaccines, leaving only medical exemptions; DHHS later amended its rule to conform and then added COVID-19 to the vaccine list in Aug. 2021.
- Plaintiffs assert violations of (1) Free Exercise Clause, (2) Title VII (failure to accommodate), (3) Equal Protection, (4) 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy, and (5) the Supremacy Clause; they moved for a preliminary injunction and a TRO; the TRO request was denied and a PI hearing was held on Sept. 20, 2021.
- Decision: Chief Judge Jon D. Levy denied the preliminary injunction on Oct. 13, 2021, concluding the mandate is neutral, generally applicable, rationally related to public-health interests, and that plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or the other PI factors.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise (First Amendment) — applicable standard | Maine’s lack of a religious exemption makes the mandate non-neutral/not generally applicable, so strict scrutiny applies | The mandate is facially neutral, the 2019 statutory removal of non-medical exemptions was not aimed at religion, medical exemptions are health‑based and do not render the rule underinclusive; rational basis applies | Court: neutral and generally applicable → rational basis applies; even under strict scrutiny the mandate would survive (compelling interest + narrowly tailored) |
| Title VII religious‑accommodation claim | Hospital defendants refused to grant religious accommodations/exemptions, unlawfully discriminating and causing employment loss | Employers acted under statutory/regulatory mandate and cited undue hardship/public‑health concerns; administrative remedies not exhausted | Court: Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on Title VII at PI stage; administrative exhaustion and high PI standard unmet; no preliminary relief granted |
| Equal Protection | Singling out religious objectors for harsher treatment than medical objectors violates equal protection | The classification is justified by public‑health rationale; same rational basis as Free Exercise analysis | Court: No greater protection required beyond Free Exercise holding; rational basis applies and claim unlikely to succeed |
| Preliminary injunction factors (irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | Loss of employment and license are irreparable; balance favors plaintiffs | Loss of injunction protects vulnerable patients and healthcare system; plaintiffs can obtain legal remedies (back pay, reinstatement) | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success; equities and public interest weigh strongly against injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state compulsory vaccination under deferential review as related to public health)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws are reviewed under rational basis for Free Exercise claims)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religion or not neutral trigger strict scrutiny)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (regulations treating comparable secular activity more favorably than religious activity can trigger strict scrutiny)
- Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (COVID‑era restrictions that target religious exercise are not neutral or generally applicable)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (existence of individualized exemptions can defeat general applicability)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) (upholding school vaccination requirement)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (religious freedom does not include liberty to expose community to communicable disease)