By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
The Post reported last month that Miller v. McDonald and other cases challenging efforts to ban religious exemptions in California and West Virginia could result in a “national legal win” for opponents of vaccine mandates.
“If the court does rule in favor of religious exemptions to vaccines, unless there is some caveat to the ruling, a Supreme Court ruling would be binding nationwide and thereby eliminate state action to remove religious exemptions,” said Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund.
One caveat, according to Kane, would be whether the Supreme Court issues a ruling that is applicable only to specific groups, like the Amish, instead of having broader applicability.
“You can’t rule in favor of one religious group to have the right to an exemption but then declare another religious group does not share that same right,” Kane said. “There is a chance the court could rule narrowly on the specifics of this case, but that will be hard in my view. A win for the Amish is likely to be a win for all.”
Another caveat, according to Manookian, is the Supreme Court’s willingness to take on a case involving vaccination.
“I would hope that case ends up at the Supreme Court, but find it difficult to predict what the court will do as it seems committed to avoiding the vaccine issue,” Manookian said.
The cases come at a time when religious exemptions have become a contentious issue in several states and have resulted in conflicting court rulings — a situation Glaser said is confusing for many parents.
“The Miller case highlights a chaotic legal landscape where lawyers and families face direct legislative confusion,” Glaser said. “Lower courts will continue splitting over the Equal Protection Clause until the Supreme Court provides the explicit clarity required.”
