Supreme Court Vacates Ruling That Upheld New York School Vaccine Mandate

The justices directed the appeals court to reconsider its ruling in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a Supreme Court ruling in June.

By Zachary Stieber The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court on Dec. 8 vacated a ruling upholding New York’s ban on religious exemptions to its school vaccine mandate and ordered a lower court to review its stance on the ban. The case is known as Miller v. McDonald.

Justices vacated the March decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had found the legislation banning religious exemptions to vaccination requirements was “neutral on its face” and did not “target or affirmatively prohibit religious practices.”

The justices directed the appeals court to reconsider its ruling in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a Supreme Court ruling in June that sided with parents who wanted the ability to opt their children out of interacting with books in school that promote lesbian, gay, and similar lifestyles. Justices did not say how the appeals court should ultimately rule after reviewing Mahmoud v. Taylor.

In Mahmoud, a majority of justices concluded that a Maryland county board of education violated the religious rights of the parents by introducing the books into the county’s curriculum and later forbidding parents from removing their children from classrooms when the stories were read.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, pointed to a previous Supreme Court ruling against a Wisconsin law that prohibited Amish parents from withdrawing their children from public schools after eighth grade.

“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Alito said.

Amish people are the litigants in Miller who challenged New York’s 2019 law, which removed the ability of parents to seek and receive religious exemptions to the vaccines required for school attendance. The only exemptions currently allowed in New York are on medical grounds and require a doctor’s certification.

The Amish litigants said in their lawsuit that New York’s repeal of religious exemptions violated their constitutional rights, including their right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

In 2024, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford ruled in favor of New York officials, citing a Second Circuit decision that upheld Connecticut’s refusal to allow religious exemptions.

The Second Circuit then upheld Wolford, finding that even if some New York legislators offered statements indicating the religious exemption repeal was motivated by discrimination, there is no evidence that a sizeable portion of lawmakers did so. Many legislators offered statements supporting religious freedom, and about 40 percent of them voted against the repeal, the appeals court said.

The appeals court also said that keeping medical exemptions in place while repealing religious exemptions means New York is treating secular conduct more favorably than religious beliefs, in part because medical exemptions require annual recertification.

In a brief to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Amish said that the court should review the ruling because justices have recognized that it is unclear whether a mandate that contains no religious exemptions “can ever be neutral and generally applicable if it exempts secular conduct that similarly frustrates the specific interest that the mandate serves.”

New York officials told the court in a brief that “under well-established free exercise principles, the presence of a single, limited medical exemption to a vaccine requirement does not require the State to provide a blanket religious exemption from vaccination.”

New York officials did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court vacating the ruling.

“The Amish community in New York wants to be left alone to live out their faith just like they have for 200 years,” Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, which is representing the litigants challenging New York’s ban, said in a statement.

“Who is the authority over our children? Their parents or government bureaucrats? Ultimately, this case will affect every American—their religious freedoms and the authority of every parent to raise their children according to their faith.”

(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)

Popular Posts