53 F.4th 29
2d Cir.2022Background
- In Oct 2018–Mar 2019 Rockland County experienced a large measles outbreak; local health officials issued school exclusion orders and on Mar 26, 2019 the County Executive issued an Emergency Declaration barring unvaccinated children (except those with medical exemptions or documented serological immunity) from public assembly.
- Plaintiffs are parents of children at Green Meadow Waldorf School (GMWS); many GMWS students held state-granted religious vaccine exemptions; exclusion orders initially imposed no religious or medical exemptions.
- County officials shifted exclusion thresholds (70% → 80% → 95%) and issued school-specific exclusion orders; the Emergency Declaration applied countywide for a limited period and included only a medical/serological exemption.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Free Exercise Clause (and related claims), alleging the orders targeted religious objectors. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, applying rational-basis review (and alternatively strict scrutiny).
- The Second Circuit vacated in part and reversed dismissal of the Free Exercise claim, holding that factual disputes (religious animus, to whom the Declaration actually applied, and the County’s purpose) preclude summary judgment and require trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neutrality: did the Declaration target religion? | Day/Ruppert acted with religious animus (contemporaneous statements, post-order lobbying, focus on religious holidays) | Declarations/statements were not contemporaneous or derogatory enough; action was facially neutral and public-health driven | Factual disputes exist; reasonable juror could find animus or not — remand for trial |
| General applicability: was the Declaration underinclusive? | Medical exemption renders the rule selectively burdensome of religion because medically exempt children pose similar transmission risks | Declaration applied to multiple non-religious categories; exemption aimed to protect medically vulnerable and to encourage vaccination | Disputed record on who was affected and on the Declaration’s purpose; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Proper level of scrutiny (rational-basis v. strict scrutiny) | If not neutral/generally applicable, strict scrutiny applies and County must show compelling, narrowly tailored interest | Rule is facially neutral and generally applicable, so rational-basis review suffices (alternative: narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny) | Court cannot decide at summary judgment because neutrality/general applicability are fact questions; remand for trial to determine applicable scrutiny |
| Summary judgment posture: could Defendants prevail as a matter of law? | Plaintiffs argued genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment | Defendants argued record supports no animus and that rule was generally applicable and rationally related to outbreak control | District court erred; appellate court vacated grant of summary judgment on Free Exercise claim and remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (tests for neutrality and for assessing whether a law’s object is to suppress religion)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws receive only rational-basis review under Free Exercise Clause)
- Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022) (Free Exercise protects religiously motivated conduct; framework for when strict scrutiny applies)
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. C.R. Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (relevance of contemporaneous decisionmaker statements to religious-discrimination inquiry)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (general applicability inquiry: law lacks general applicability if it permits secular conduct that undermines its asserted interests)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (comparability for Free Exercise measured by risks activities pose)
- We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul, 17 F.4th 266 (2d Cir. 2021) (application of neutrality/general applicability in vaccine-rule context)
- Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (context on geographic targeting and religious constituencies in public‑health orders)
- Cent. Rabbinical Cong. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (underinclusiveness and Free Exercise analysis)