17 F.4th 266
2d Cir.2021Background
- New York Dept. of Health emergency Rule (10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.61, Aug. 26, 2021) required covered healthcare "personnel" to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with a narrowly defined medical exemption but no religious exemption.
- An August 18, 2021 Commissioner Order (short‑term) had included a religious exemption; the August 26 Rule was promulgated by the full Public Health and Health Planning Council and did not include one.
- Two related federal suits by healthcare workers and an association challenged the Rule on Free Exercise, Supremacy Clause (Title VII preemption), and Fourteenth Amendment privacy/bodily‑autonomy grounds; district courts split (one denied PI, one granted PI).
- The State defended the Rule as neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to compelling public‑health interests; it also produced data showing large increases in vaccination rates after the Rule and that religious exemption claims outnumber medical exemptions.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits for purposes of a preliminary injunction and reversed the Northern District’s injunction, affirming the Eastern District’s denial and remanding both cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise — Neutrality | Rule targets religion because the earlier Commissioner Order included a religious exemption while the Rule did not; statements by Governor show animus | Rule is facially neutral and applies to all personnel; August 18 Order and Rule arose from different processes and urgencies | Plaintiffs failed to show likely non‑neutrality; district court’s neutrality finding was clearly erroneous |
| Free Exercise — General applicability / comparability of exemptions | Medical and religious exemptions are comparable because any unvaccinated worker poses similar transmission risk | Medical exemptions are objectively limited, often temporary, and pose different aggregate risks than widespread, permanent religious exemptions | Plaintiffs failed to show the exemptions are comparable; rational‑basis review governs and the Rule is rationally related to public‑health goals |
| Supremacy Clause / Title VII preemption | Rule precludes employers from providing Title VII religious accommodations — effectively forecloses pathway guaranteed by federal law | Rule is silent on accommodations and does not prevent employers from offering reasonable accommodations (reassignment, remote work, PPE, etc.) | Plaintiffs failed to show impossibility of complying with both laws; no likely preemption |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Privacy / bodily autonomy | Mandatory-vaccination requirement infringes fundamental privacy/medical‑autonomy rights | Jacobson and subsequent precedent permit reasonable vaccination requirements to protect public health; no new fundamental right controls | Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; no fundamental right invalidates the Rule under current precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws receive rational‑basis review for incidental burdens on religion)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws that target religious conduct are subject to strict scrutiny)
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021) (explains individualized‑exemption and general‑applicability inquiries under Free Exercise Clause)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (States may adopt reasonable regulations, including vaccination mandates, to protect public health)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (comparability inquiry focuses on risks various activities pose relative to the asserted government interest)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (COVID‑era Free Exercise analysis comparing religious and secular activity restrictions)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (burdens at preliminary injunction stage track burdens at trial; allocation of proof)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) (Title VII requires reasonable accommodation unless undue hardship on employer)