Phillips ex rel. B.P. v. City of New York
27 F. Supp. 3d 310
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Three consolidated plaintiffs sued on behalf of their minor children challenging New York’s vaccination practice after their children received (or had revoked) religious exemptions and faced exclusion from school during outbreaks.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal constitutional claims (First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments) and state-law claims (New York Public Health Law §2164(9), NYC Human Rights Law, and certain regulations).
- Plaintiffs alleged their sincere religious beliefs conflicted with vaccination, and that exemption determinations were arbitrary, subjective, and improperly forced parents to detail beliefs.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the City/DOE’s motion was treated as a motion to dismiss rather than for summary judgment.
- The court evaluated whether constitutional protections or due process/equal protection doctrines exempt religious objectors from mandatory vaccination or otherwise invalidate New York’s statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise (First Amendment) | Vaccination practice and exemption process violated free exercise by excluding children and requiring disclosure/tests of beliefs | Jacobson and controlling precedent permit compulsory vaccination; no constitutional right to religious exemption | Dismissed — no First Amendment exemption; plaintiffs cannot overturn Jacobson or district precedents |
| Substantive Due Process | Exclusion and statute infringe fundamental liberty rights | State police power supports vaccination laws; Jacobson forecloses substantive due process challenge | Dismissed — Jacobson and Second Circuit precedent defeat the claim |
| Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment) | Policy discriminates against religion or treats classes unequally | Plaintiffs failed to allege favoritism of one religion or membership in protected class; no plausible equal protection violation | Dismissed — insufficient factual allegations to state an equal protection claim |
| Supplemental State Claims / Jurisdiction | State claims seek relief for statutory/regulatory violations related to exemptions and exclusions | With federal claims dismissed, court should decline supplemental jurisdiction | Court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without reaching merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding state authority to enforce compulsory vaccination)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (incorporation of free exercise to the states)
- Caviezel v. Great Neck Pub. Sch., 739 F. Supp. 2d 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding no First Amendment right to religious exemption from NY vaccination law)
- Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., 672 F. Supp. 81 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (finding statutory exemptions exceed First Amendment requirements)
- McCartney v. Austin, 31 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969) (recognizing vaccination program within State police power)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (district court discretion to dismiss state claims when federal claims are dismissed)