Introduction

In the landmark case We The Patriots USA, Inc. et al. v. Kathleen Hochul et al. (17 F.4th 266, 2021), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed the legality of New York State's emergency rule mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare personnel. The plaintiffs, comprising individual healthcare workers and a membership organization, challenged the rule's constitutionality, arguing that the absence of a religious exemption violated their First Amendment rights, infracted the Fourteenth Amendment, and conflicted with the Supremacy Clause.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit examined two concurrent cases wherein district courts in New York considered preliminary injunctions against enforcing the state's COVID-19 vaccination mandate, specifically targeting healthcare facilities. While the Eastern District of New York denied the injunction without detailed reasoning, the Northern District granted it, finding that the rule likely failed strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause and was preempted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Upon appeal, the Second Circuit focused on the standards for granting preliminary injunctions, primarily the likelihood of success on the merits. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probable success in their claims. Consequently, the court affirmed the Eastern District's denial of the injunction, reversed the Northern District's grant of the injunction, vacated it, and remanded both cases for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on several key precedents:

• Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990): Established the standard for assessing Free Exercise Clause claims, particularly distinguishing between neutral laws of general applicability and those targeting religious practices.
• Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S. & Canada v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Health, 763 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014): Provided a framework for evaluating whether a law is generally applicable and neutral concerning religious practices.
• JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905): Affirmed the state's authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws under its police powers to protect public health and safety.
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020): Addressed the comparability of risks posed by secular versus religious activities in the context of COVID-19 restrictions.
• Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021): Emphasized the importance of assessing comparability based on the government's asserted interests and the risks posed by various activities.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the application of the Smith standard, determining whether New York's vaccine mandate was a neutral law of general applicability. The absence of a religious exemption did not inherently render the law non-neutral. The Second Circuit found that the mandate was indeed neutral, as it applied uniformly to all covered personnel, irrespective of the reasons behind their vaccination status.

Furthermore, the court examined whether the mandate failed rational basis review, concluding that the state's interest in protecting public health and preventing disease transmission was compelling and that the requirement was a reasonable means to achieve that interest. The presence of a medical exemption was deemed insufficient by plaintiffs to argue that the rule was not generally applicable, as medical exemptions are objectively defined and limited.

On the Supremacy Clause and Title VII claims, the court held that the mandate did not preempt federal law. Title VII allows for reasonable accommodations based on religion, and the mandate did not prohibit employers from providing such accommodations. Thus, there was no conflict between state and federal law.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the authority of states to implement public health measures, such as vaccine mandates, especially in critical sectors like healthcare. By upholding the mandate without the necessity of religious exemptions, it sets a precedent that public health goals can supersede individual religious objections in the context of a public health emergency. Additionally, it clarifies that while medical exemptions are permissible, they do not automatically necessitate the inclusion of religious exemptions to maintain the neutrality and general applicability of the law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Free Exercise Clause and Smith Standard

The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without undue government interference. Under the Smith standard, if a law is neutral and generally applicable, it is subject to rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny. This means the government only needs to show that the law is a reasonable means to achieve a legitimate interest.

Supremacy Clause and Title VII

The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law takes precedence over state laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, among other factors. However, if a state law does not directly conflict with Title VII, such as by prohibiting reasonable religious accommodations, there is no preemption.

Preliminary Injunction Standards

A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order made before a full trial to prevent potential harm. To obtain one, a plaintiff must show:

1. Likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
2. Irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
3. That the balance of equities tips in their favor.
4. That the public interest favors granting the injunction.

General Applicability

A law is generally applicable if it applies to everyone in a similar situation without targeting specific groups or practices. In this case, New York's mandate applied uniformly to all healthcare personnel, making it generally applicable despite the absence of a religious exemption.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. Hochul underscores the judiciary's role in upholding state public health measures during emergencies. By affirming the enforceability of New York's COVID-19 vaccine mandate without necessitating religious exemptions, the court affirmed the balance between individual rights and collective safety. This judgment emphasizes that while religious and medical exemptions are considered, they do not inherently undermine the general applicability and neutrality of public health laws. Future cases in similar contexts will likely reference this precedent when evaluating the constitutionality of public health mandates.