A federal appeals court ruled in Connecticut’s favor in a dispute over the state’s removal of the religious exemption to its vaccine mandate. Connecticut law mandates vaccinations for “schoolchildren, college and university students, and childcare participants.”
The plaintiffs objected on religious grounds “to us[ing] or benefit[ing] from the use of aborted fetal cells” from stem cell lines used to produce some vaccines.
The three-judge panel of the Second Circuit held 2–1 that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not require a state to provide a religious exemption. The appeals court found the law constitutional because it was neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to the state’s public health goals.
Connecticut offered a religious exemption until 2021, when “Connecticut became the fifth State to” eliminate its religious exemption. The state, however, kept its exemption for individuals when vaccination is medically contraindicated.
Connecticut cited public health concerns as justification for removing the religious exemption, pointing to data showing a dramatic increase in the number of religious exemptions. The increase in religious exemptions, coupled with their uneven distribution throughout the state, made community immunity, also known as herd immunity, difficult to achieve, according to the state.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, whose office defended the law, praised the decision in a press release: “This decision is a full and resounding affirmation of the constitutionality and legality of Connecticut’s vaccine requirements.”
Plaintiff We The Patriots USA, through its Vice President and Co-Founder Brian Festa, expressed its disappointment to Legal Insurrection in an email: “We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the removal of the religious exemption in Connecticut does not infringe upon the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.”
Appeals Court: No First Amendment Free Exercise Violation
The plaintiffs claimed a medical exemption without a religious exemption violated their First Amendment rights. The appeals court rejected this argument, finding the law neutral with regard to religion and generally applicable.
The plaintiffs did not persuade the appeals court with their argument that a medical exemption without a religious exemption showed the law targeted religion. The appeals court held that a continuing medical exemption furthered the same interest as removing the religious exemption: advancing public health.
The appeals court found the law neutral because the legislative history of the law evinced no hostility toward religion, and the law made concessions to families previously granted religious exemptions by allowing children already exempted to keep that exemption.
The appeals court also rejected the argument that the removal of a religious exemption was itself evidence of hostility toward religion, noting this would convert all religious exemptions into permanent exemptions and possibly discourage legislatures from crafting new religious exemptions.
Because the law is neutral and generally applicable, the appeals court held, the law is constitutional because it is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring “the health and safety of Connecticut students and the broader public.”
Appeals Court: Remaining Constitutional Claims Lack Merit
The plaintiffs also argued the vaccine mandate burdened their constitutional rights to privacy and medical freedom, equal protection, and childrearing. The appeals court rejected these constitutional claims.
Citing binding precedent, the appeals court rejected the privacy and medical freedom arguments: “the Constitution embodies no fundamental right that in and of itself would render vaccine requirements imposed in the public interest, in the face of a public health emergency, unconstitutional.”
The appeals court also rejected the plaintiffs’ age-discrimination equal protection claim. The plaintiff’s based this claim on the law’s continuing exemption for already-exempted students, which the plaintiffs argued constituted age-based discrimination against younger students who had not received a religious exemption under the old law.
The appeals rejected this argument, finding the continuing exemptions “balance[d] the expectation interests of parents with currently enrolled students” while allowing Connecticut to further its public health interest.
Addressing the childrearing argument, the appeals court acknowledged parents’ right to “the care, custody, and control of their children” but held the childrearing claim could not exist independent of the First Amendment claim, which the appeals court already rejected.
We The Patriots USA vowed “to file for en banc review at the Second Circuit, giving all 13 judges an opportunity to review this decision.” Festa pledged to “appeal to the United States Supreme Court” if unsuccessful before the Second Circuit again.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY