However, the Caviezel court noted that the Supreme Court has mentioned religious exemptions two other times in Wisconsin v. Yoder and Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. These were two very influential cases involving the Free Exercise Clause. Both times the Court had indicated that no exemption exists.
First, in Yoder, the case in which the Court had exempted Amish children from Wisconsin’s compulsory education law, the Court stated that “[t]his case, of course, is not one in which any harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred.” The Supreme Court continued by citing to Jacobson and indicating …show more content…
The first argument was that the court should apply strict scrutiny to the state immunization requirement based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Church of the Lukumi Babula Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. Plaintiffs asserted that the court would find no compelling state interest to justify immunization requirements. However, the court rejected Plaintiff’s argument. The Caviezel court found that Lukumi Babula had established that “the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling government interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” Applied to Plaintiff’s argument, the court found that the state’s mandatory school vaccination program was “neutral and of general applicability,” so it did not need to be justified by a compelling governmental …show more content…
section 72-5209 would not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As the district court in Caviezel pointed out, the Supreme Court has yet to rule explicitly that mandatory vaccinations without religious exemptions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, the Second and Fourth Circuits, as well as two federal district courts in Arkansas, have analyzed the Supreme Court’s holdings and determined that mandatory vaccinations without religious exemptions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Only two federal district courts have taken the contrary view and, in doing so, neither actually analyzed case law from the Supreme Court that held that the First Amendment does provide a right to a religious exemption. While neither the Tenth Circuit nor any district court in any of the states that comprise the Tenth Circuit have addressed the issue, the issue appears to be well-settled within two circuits: compulsory vaccination laws do not violate the Free Exercise
First, in Yoder, the case in which the Court had exempted Amish children from Wisconsin’s compulsory education law, the Court stated that “[t]his case, of course, is not one in which any harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred.” The Supreme Court continued by citing to Jacobson and indicating …show more content…
The first argument was that the court should apply strict scrutiny to the state immunization requirement based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Church of the Lukumi Babula Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. Plaintiffs asserted that the court would find no compelling state interest to justify immunization requirements. However, the court rejected Plaintiff’s argument. The Caviezel court found that Lukumi Babula had established that “the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling government interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” Applied to Plaintiff’s argument, the court found that the state’s mandatory school vaccination program was “neutral and of general applicability,” so it did not need to be justified by a compelling governmental …show more content…
section 72-5209 would not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As the district court in Caviezel pointed out, the Supreme Court has yet to rule explicitly that mandatory vaccinations without religious exemptions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, the Second and Fourth Circuits, as well as two federal district courts in Arkansas, have analyzed the Supreme Court’s holdings and determined that mandatory vaccinations without religious exemptions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Only two federal district courts have taken the contrary view and, in doing so, neither actually analyzed case law from the Supreme Court that held that the First Amendment does provide a right to a religious exemption. While neither the Tenth Circuit nor any district court in any of the states that comprise the Tenth Circuit have addressed the issue, the issue appears to be well-settled within two circuits: compulsory vaccination laws do not violate the Free Exercise