Introduction

The case of Jane Does 1-11; John Does 1, 3-7 v. The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado addresses significant constitutional questions surrounding the enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandates by government employers, specifically within academic institutions. The plaintiffs, employed by or enrolled at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus, challenged the University's policies that granted religious exemptions under discriminatory and non-neutral criteria.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunctions sought by the plaintiffs. The appellate court held that the University's policies on religious exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the corresponding protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The policies were found to be non-neutral, generally not applicable, and motivated by religious animus, thereby failing strict scrutiny.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shape First Amendment jurisprudence:

• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Highlighted the importance of neutrality in government actions regarding religion.
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah: Established that laws targeting specific religious practices demonstrate animus.
• Colo. Christian Univ. v. Weaver: Addressed excessive entanglement between government and religious institutions.
• Snyder v. Murray City Corp.: Discussed the distinction between discrimination and animus in religious contexts.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a stringent analysis under the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. It determined that:

• The University's September 1 Policy was non-neutral and selectively applied, favoring some religions over others based on the perceived legitimacy of their doctrines.
• The policy's requirement for individuals to justify the sincerity of their religious beliefs constituted excessive government entanglement in religious matters, violating the Establishment Clause.
• The policies were motivated by religious animus, as evidenced by their discriminatory application and the stereotypes perpetuated against certain religious groups.
• Both policies failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard, a rigorous test applied to laws that infringe upon fundamental rights unless they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Moreover, the court emphasized that when governmental policies lack neutrality and are not generally applicable, they inherently require strict scrutiny. The administration's inability to provide a compelling justification for its selective exemptions further solidified the policies' unconstitutionality.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for how government employers, especially in educational and healthcare settings, must craft policies regarding religious exemptions. It underscores the necessity for neutrality and general applicability in such policies and reinforces that overt or covert religious animus is constitutionally impermissible. Future cases will likely reference this decision when evaluating the balance between public health mandates and religious freedoms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit's decision in Jane Does v. The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado reinforces the paramount importance of neutrality and general applicability in government policies affecting religious freedoms. By applying strict scrutiny, the court ensures that government actions do not infringe upon fundamental rights without meeting the highest constitutional standards. This ruling serves as a critical check against discriminatory practices and underscores the enduring protection of religious liberty under the U.S. Constitution.