Phillips ex rel. B.P. v. City of New York
775 F.3d 538
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- New York Public Health Law requires immunization for public school attendance but provides medical and sincere-religious exemptions.
- A state regulation permits temporary exclusion of exempted students during an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease.
- Plaintiffs: Phillips and Mendoza-Vaca (Catholic) had religious exemptions but their children were excluded during a school chickenpox outbreak; Check applied for a religious exemption for her daughter, DOE found her beliefs not genuine and denied the exemption after a hearing where Check described health-based objections.
- Check sought a preliminary injunction to attend school unvaccinated; magistrate and district courts found her beliefs not sincerely religious and denied relief; that factfinding was not appealed.
- District court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss or for summary judgment as to consolidated plaintiffs; plaintiffs appealed and later sought reconsideration (denied for lack of jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — mandatory vaccination | Mandatory vaccination infringes individual liberty under Fourteenth Amendment | Jacobson and precedent allow state exercise of police power to require vaccinations | Held: Claim foreclosed by Jacobson; statute is constitutional |
| Free Exercise — temporary exclusion during outbreak | Excluding exempted students burdens religious exercise | Law is neutral and generally applicable; state may protect public health; Prince and Jacobson permit regulation | Held: No Free Exercise violation; exclusion permissible; New York even provides a religious exemption beyond constitutional minima |
| Equal Protection | Differential treatment of Check (denied exemption) vs. other parents violates Equal Protection | Check’s beliefs were found insincere; no showing of similarly situated class-based discrimination | Held: Claim fails — plaintiffs did not show a plausible equal protection violation |
| Ninth Amendment / other federal claims | Rights not enumerated elsewhere support challenge to mandate | Ninth Amendment is not an independent source of rights; underlying federal claims fail | Held: Ninth Amendment claim fails; supplemental state-law claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholds state compulsory vaccination under police power)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) (affirms state authority to require vaccination for school attendance)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (religious freedom does not include liberty to expose community to communicable disease)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutral, generally applicable laws need not satisfy strict scrutiny under Free Exercise Clause)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (applies Free Exercise protections against states)
- Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003) (parental Free Exercise claims evaluated under rational-basis review)