Most states have laws requiring schoolchildren to get certain vaccinations. One of the first states to take this step was New York, which authorized school officials to deny admission to unvaccinated students as early as 1860. Its modern school immunization law dates from 1966, and it initially carved out two major exemptions. In addition to a medical exemption, the law exempted students from immunization based on religious objections by their parents.
This system lasted for about half a century. After an exceptionally severe measles outbreak in 2018-19, though, the state ended the religious exemption to the immunization law. (The medical exemption stayed on the books.) This resulted in a legal challenge from the Amish community, arguing that the lack of a religious exemption violated the right to the free exercise of religion provided by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Amish parents in the lawsuit also pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court case called Wisconsin v. Yoder, which gave significant weight to the interests of Amish people in shaping the upbringing of their children.
A federal district court judge rejected these arguments, finding that no constitutional violation had occurred and dismissing the lawsuit. The Second Circuit agreed when it initially heard the appeal, only for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The nation’s highest tribunal asked the Second Circuit to take another look at the case based on its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor last June. This involved a free exercise claim based on the integration of LGBTQ+ inclusive books in the curriculum of certain public elementary schools in Maryland. The school board didn’t allow parents to opt their children out of exposure to this material. The Supreme Court found that the school board likely had violated the Free Exercise Clause.
The Second Circuit reconsidered the immunization case in the wake of Mahmoud and certain other relevant cases. Last week, it reaffirmed its original decision. The Second Circuit first found that the New York law is neutral and generally applicable. This means that courts should review a free exercise challenge under a deferential standard called rational basis review. The Amish plaintiffs had argued that a much tougher standard of review called strict scrutiny should apply. Since they conceded that the law satisfied rational basis review, the Second Circuit easily disposed of the main free exercise argument.
This didn’t end the analysis, though. The court continued to discuss the impact of Yoder and Mahmoud more specifically. After comparing the circumstances in this case to those in the Supreme Court precedents, the Second Circuit found them sufficiently distinct to warrant a different result. It concluded that, unlike the policy in Mahmoud, the New York law doesn’t regulate what children are taught and ultimately doesn’t displace the authority of parents over their children’s religious upbringing. It thus survived constitutional scrutiny, barring any further review by the Supreme Court.
Photo Credit: Maria Sbytova / Shutterstock.com
