Vaccination mandate upheld as neutral law under free exercise clause

Listen to this article

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that West Virginia‘s compulsory vaccination law is a neutral and generally applicable public health measure that satisfies rational basis review and does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court reversed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs sought a religious exemption from the state’s vaccination requirement after their child was disenrolled from a public virtual school for noncompliance. State law permits only medical exemptions. A U.S. District Court had granted preliminary relief, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim. The 4th Circuit disagreed, emphasizing longstanding precedent recognizing broad state authority to enact vaccination requirements to protect public health.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions such as Jacobson, Zucht, and Prince, the court explained that generally applicable health regulations may permissibly burden individual liberties, including religious exercise. Applying Employment Division v. Smith, the court concluded the law is neutral and generally applicable because it does not target religion and applies uniformly, with limited medical exemptions based on objective criteria.

Under rational basis review, the court found the law easily justified by the state’s interest in preventing the spread of infectious diseases. The court rejected arguments that medical exemptions undermine general applicability or trigger heightened scrutiny, noting they advance public health objectives. It also declined to extend parental rights precedents, concluding the law does not impose ideological instruction or interfere with religious upbringing.

The 38 page opinion is Perry v. Marteney, Lawyers Weekly No. 101-119-26.