Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in New York City, affirmed in a unanimous decision last year. The appeals court said the state’s action was a “neutral and generally applicable law” that did not target religious beliefs.
The parents and groups appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the 2nd Circuit’s ruling conflicted with decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 9th circuits that have held that similar state laws targeting religious exemptions for vaccinations were subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.
But the justices declined to take up the case, leaving the 2nd Circuit’s ruling in place. The court’s action has implications for similar legal challenges in other states that have eliminated religious exemptions for school vaccinations.
The court’s decision not to hear the case comes as the nation continues to grapple with issues related to public health and individual rights during the COVID-19 pandemic. The debate over vaccination requirements in schools has been particularly contentious, with some parents and groups arguing that such mandates infringe on their religious beliefs and personal freedoms.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s actions in these two cases highlight the complex legal and constitutional issues surrounding LGBTQ+ rights, medical treatment for transgender youth, and religious exemptions for school vaccinations. These decisions will have far-reaching implications for individuals, communities, and states across the country, and will continue to shape the ongoing national conversation around these important issues. The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, located in New York City, recently affirmed a ruling that stated the absence or repeal of a religious exemption does not make a school vaccination law unconstitutional. This decision aligns with a growing consensus among state and federal appellate courts on the matter.
In a Supreme Court appeal, the challengers argued that the lack of a religious exemption in the state’s vaccination rule rendered it not neutral and generally applicable, thereby violating the free-exercise clause. However, the state contended that there was no true circuit split on the issues raised in the case, and that the medical exemption is only utilized by a small number of children.
The state further argued that by eliminating the religious exemption, it was better able to protect the health of students and communities by ensuring herd immunity. This move was seen as a necessary step to improve public health and prevent the spread of preventable diseases.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to hear the challengers’ appeal, effectively upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This ruling highlights the importance of prioritizing public health and safety in the face of vaccine-preventable diseases, and reinforces the authority of states to implement vaccination laws that promote the well-being of their residents.
