A federal appeals court ruled on March 3 against Amish people who challenged New York state’s repeal of religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Amish did not show violations of their constitutional rights.
The law enacting the repeal “is neutral on its face” and “does not target or affirmatively prohibit religious practices,” the unanimous panel said in a per curiam ruling. “The law simply applies New York’s school immunization requirements to all schoolchildren who do not qualify for the law’s medical exemption.”
The panel consisted of U.S. Circuit Judges Jose Cabranes, Eunice Lee, and Richard Wesley.
For years, New York allowed religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements, which include vaccination for measles, polio, and pertussis.
Lawmakers approved an amendment to the state’s public health law in 2019 following a measles outbreak that spread partly among unvaccinated children. The amendment removed the ability to seek and receive a religious exemption. Now, only a medical exemption is available, provided that a doctor certifies that a vaccine “may be detrimental to a child’s health.”
Amish parents and schools sued New York state in 2023, alleging that the repeal of the religious exemption violated their constitutional rights, including their First Amendment right to free expression.
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford ruled against the plaintiffs in 2024. She pointed to a Second Circuit decision that upheld Connecticut’s law pertaining to vaccination requirements for schoolchildren, which, she wrote, “ is not materially different from New York’s.” The Second Circuit ruled that not allowing religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates was a reasonable way to protect public health.
“However colorable Plaintiffs’ claims may have been at the outset of this action, this Court is bound by the Second Circuit’s intervening decision,” Wolford said.
In their appeal, the Amish argued that the law was motivated by discrimination, pointing to statements made by lawmakers.
The Second Circuit judges disagreed.
