155 F. Supp. 3d 247
E.D.N.Y.2016Background
- NM, an Orthodox Jewish mother, sought religious exemptions for her two school-age children (EK, LK) from New York Public Health Law § 2164 vaccination requirements; HALB previously granted exemptions in 2010 and 2012 but reexamined exemptions in 2015.
- HALB changed its internal review process in 2015, interviewed NM and her husband about the basis for their refusal to vaccinate, and concluded their objections were health-based rather than grounded in sincere religious doctrine.
- After a meeting and review of written explanations (including an email from NM’s husband describing medical consultations and rabbinic guidance), HALB denied the religious exemption and excluded the children after the statutory 14-day attendance period expired; plaintiffs were then homeschooled.
- Plaintiffs sued HALB and state education and health commissioners and moved for a mandatory preliminary injunction to reinstate the children at HALB without vaccinations during litigation.
- The Court held an evidentiary hearing focused on whether NM’s beliefs were genuine and sincerely religious; the court found evidence that NM’s objections were primarily health- and safety-based and selectively applied.
- The Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs failed to show a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits (no genuine, sincerely-held religious belief barring vaccination), though it acknowledged exclusion from school is an irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mandatory preliminary injunction should order HALB to admit unvaccinated children during litigation | NM sought reinstatement based on sincerely-held religious objection to vaccination under PHL § 2164(9) | HALB argued it properly denied exemption after investigating sincerity and that exclusion enforcement complies with state law | Denied — plaintiffs failed to show clear likelihood of success on merits, so mandatory injunction not warranted |
| Whether NM’s refusal to vaccinate is a "genuine and sincere" religious belief under PHL § 2164(9) | NM: beliefs derive from Torah/Halachah emphasizing maintaining bodily purity and preferring natural preventive measures; consulted rabbis | HALB: evidence shows reasons are health/safety based (medical consultations, focus on side effects), selective practices (ear piercing, vitamins, sunscreen) undermine claim of religious prohibition | Held not sincere religious objection; motivations found principally health-based, not religious, so exemption properly denied |
| Whether exclusion from school constitutes irreparable harm supporting injunction | NM: exclusion harms children and merits urgent relief | HALB: does not dispute exclusion is harmful but contends merits defeat injunction requirement | Court: exclusion is irreparable harm, but plaintiffs still must show likelihood of success; harm alone insufficient here |
| Standard for mandatory injunction and plaintiffs’ burden | NM: argued entitlement to interim relief pending resolution | HALB: emphasized heightened showing required for mandatory relief altering status quo | Court applied heightened standard (clear/substantial likelihood of success) and found plaintiffs did not meet it |
Key Cases Cited
- Caviezel v. Great Neck Pub. Sch., 701 F. Supp. 2d 414 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying injunction where vaccine objection was health‑based, not religious)
- Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (upholding local immunization requirements against related challenges)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for preliminary injunction analysis)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction described as extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing)