720 F.Supp.3d 198
W.D.N.Y.2024Background
- Plaintiffs are Amish individuals and private Amish schools in New York who object to mandatory school vaccination requirements on religious grounds.
- New York public health law, PHL § 2164, requires vaccination for schoolchildren and, since 2019, provides only a medical exemption—having repealed its religious exemption.
- In 2022, the State Department of Health (NYSDOH) found the plaintiff schools noncompliant and imposed substantial monetary penalties for admitting unvaccinated children.
- Plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the lack of a religious exemption violated their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the law against them unless a religious exemption was allowed; defendants sought dismissal of the claims.
- During the litigation, the Second Circuit decided We the Patriots USA Inc. v. Connecticut, a case with nearly identical facts addressing Connecticut’s similar vaccination law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing against Dr. Rosa (Commissioner of Education) | Rosa is a proper defendant because she oversees education and could hear appeals of school exclusions. | Plaintiffs allege no concrete injury traceable to Rosa; Education Department played no enforcement role. | No standing as to Rosa; claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| First Amendment Free Exercise | PHL § 2164’s removal of religious exemption, but retention of medical exemption, targets religious beliefs and is not neutral or generally applicable. | Law is neutral and generally applicable; medical exemption is objectively defined and necessary for health; removal of religious exemption was for public health, not animus. | Law is neutral and generally applicable; subject only to rational basis review. |
| Stringency of Review (Strict vs. Rational Basis) | Strict scrutiny should apply due to non-neutrality, general applicability, and involvement of hybrid rights (parental, speech, association). | Rational basis review applies; no hybrid rights doctrine in Second Circuit; medical exemption does not create discretion triggering strict scrutiny. | Rational basis review applies; no heightened scrutiny for hybrid rights. |
| Rational Basis | N/A (Plaintiffs conceded rational basis would be met) | State’s interest in protecting public health is legitimate and requirement is rationally related to that interest. | Requirement meets rational basis review; complaint dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goe v. Zucker, 43 F.4th 19 (2d Cir. 2022) (upholding repeal of religious exemption from New York’s vaccination law)
- Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (mandatory school vaccination does not violate Free Exercise Clause)
- We the Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, 76 F.4th 130 (2d Cir. 2023) (Connecticut’s similar repeal of religious exemption upheld under rational basis review)
- Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable law does not violate Free Exercise Clause)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (targeting religion triggers strict scrutiny)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021) (discretionary exemption triggers strict scrutiny)