Second Circuit Affirms Connecticut's Repeal of Religious Vaccination Exemptions as Neutral and Generally Applicable

Introduction

In the case of We The Patriots USA, Inc.; CT Freedom Alliance, LLC; et al. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development; et al., decided on August 4, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed the constitutionality of Connecticut's Public Act 21-6. This legislation repealed religious exemptions previously afforded to parents and guardians regarding state immunization requirements for schoolchildren, college and university students, and childcare participants. Plaintiffs, comprising two organizations and three individuals, challenged the Act on the grounds that it violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, among other constitutional protections.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from a district court's decision to dismiss several constitutional claims against Connecticut's Public Act 21-6. The district court had dismissed:

Claims against state agencies based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity;
Organizational plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing;
All five counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the first four counts but vacated and remanded the fifth count pertaining to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for further proceedings. Importantly, the Court upheld that the Act's removal of religious exemptions did not violate the Free Exercise Clause, as the legislation was deemed neutral, generally applicable, and subject to rational basis review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on established legal precedents concerning the intersection of public health mandates and religious freedoms. Key cases include:

Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Established that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practices.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly (2007): Set standards for pleading sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim.
JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS (1905): Upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
Phillips v. City of New York (2015): Affirmed that mandatory vaccination does not violate the Free Exercise Clause when applied uniformly.
Rockland County v. Department of Health (2022): Highlighted the necessity of factual development in assessing general applicability and neutrality.

These cases collectively inform the Court's approach to evaluating whether vaccine mandates infringe upon constitutional rights, particularly regarding religious objections.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the Smith Test to determine whether Public Act 21-6 was constitutional:

Neutrality: The Court examined whether the Act targeted religious practices unfairly. It found no evidence of legislative hostility towards religion, noting that accommodations were made solely to existing religious exemptions and that no animus was demonstrated in the legislative history.
General Applicability: The Act was evaluated to see if it treated all comparable situations equally, without favoring secular reasons over religious ones. The Court concluded that medical exemptions do not serve the same purpose as religious exemptions and are not comparable in terms of the State's interest in public health.
Rational Basis Review: Given that the Act was both neutral and generally applicable, it was subjected to rational basis review. The Court affirmed that the repeal of religious exemptions was rationally related to the compelling interest of protecting public health and safety.

The majority emphasized that the legislative intent was to address declining vaccination rates and prevent potential public health crises, a goal that rationally justifies the removal of religious exemptions while maintaining specific medical exemptions.

Impact

The decision reinforces the authority of states to regulate vaccination requirements for students without providing religious exemptions, provided that such regulations are neutral, generally applicable, and rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This judgment may influence:

Future Vaccination Mandates: States may feel more confident in removing religious exemptions from their vaccination laws, aligning with public health priorities.
Legal Challenges: The ruling sets a precedent that similar challenges based on the Free Exercise Clause are likely to fail if the law in question meets the neutrality and general applicability criteria.
Religious Freedom Discussions: The decision may spark further debate on the balance between individual religious freedoms and collective public health needs.

Additionally, the Court's differentiation between medical and religious exemptions underscores the nuanced approach required in constitutional analyses of public health measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The Smith Test

Originating from Employment Division v. Smith, the Smith Test assesses whether a law violates the Free Exercise Clause by determining if it is:

Neutral: The law does not target a specific religion or religious practices.
Generally Applicable: The law applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs.

If a law meets both criteria, it is deemed constitutional under rational basis review, even if it incidentally burdens religious practices.

Rational Basis vs. Strict Scrutiny

Rational Basis Review: The lowest level of scrutiny, requiring that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Strict Scrutiny: The highest level of scrutiny, applied to laws that infringe upon fundamental rights or target suspect classifications, requiring the law to further a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way possible.

In this case, because the law was neutral and generally applicable, it was subject to rational basis review.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development upholds Connecticut's removal of religious exemptions from its school vaccination mandates. By affirming that the Act is neutral, generally applicable, and meets rational basis review, the Court reinforced the government's authority to enact public health measures that may limit certain individual freedoms when justified by compelling interests. This ruling not only settles the immediate dispute but also sets a clear precedent for similar cases nationwide, highlighting the judiciary's stance on balancing religious freedoms with public health imperatives.