On Friday, August 4, in We The Patriots USA v. Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, the Second Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Chin, affirmed the district court's prior decision dismissing plaintiffs' complaints under the Free Exercise Clause, due process, and equal protection, ultimately upholding Connecticut's Public Act 21-6 ending religious vaccine exemptions for students as constitutional. 

We The Patriots USA and CT Freedom Alliance, LLC, public interest organizations, along with several individual parents, sued several Connecticut agencies and three local school boards over Public Act 21-6. Public Act 21-6 amended broad vaccination requirements for children enrolled in public and nonpublic schools, children attending childcare centers and group childcare homes, and students enrolled in public and private institutions of higher education, such that religious exemptions to vaccination would no longer be permitted, while keeping medical exemptions in place. Plaintiffs argued that the Act violated the Free Exercise Clause, due process rights to privacy and medical freedom, equal protection, and liberty interests in childrearing. One plaintiff additionally alleged that the Act violated the IDEA.

On June 30th, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in district court, citing immunity for state agency defendants, lack of standing for the organizational plaintiffs, and failure to state a claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 11th, 2022. The court concluded that the state agency defendants were immune from plaintiffs’ first four counts, that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing, and that moreover plaintiffs had failed to state claims. Plaintiffs then appealed.

The Second Circuit temporarily suspended proceedings in the case pending their decision in M.A. v. Rockland County Department of Health, which involved another Free Exercise Clause challenge to emergency orders from the county. On August 4th, 2023, the Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the Free Exercise, due process, and equal protection claims, but vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of the IDEA claim. The court reviewed the public health background and legislative history of the Act, and then proceeded to address plaintiffs’ complaints on the merits.

The Second Circuit determined, in agreement with the district court, that the Act’s vaccination mandates were both neutral and generally applicable under standards set out previously by the Supreme Court, and as such only warranted rational basis review, which the plaintiffs conceded that the Act would survive. The court found that the Act, alongside its legislative history, "contain[s] no trace of hostility toward religion but rather reflect[s] significant accommodations on the part of the legislature". The court relied on several precedents to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s substantive due process claims, particularly that there is no fundamental right to an education or to avoid vaccination, additionally finding that the mandate did not compel vaccination. They further concluded that the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim of age-based classification was appropriately dismissed, as the classification was rationally related to Connecticut’s interest in protecting the health and safety of students.

The Second Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s dismissal of the IDEA claim, stating that the district court had been overly restrictive in determining that one plaintiff’s child merely received special services and not special education. The Second Circuit held that the plaintiff had stated a plausible claim under the IDEA, vacating and remanding that part of the judgment for further proceedings.

Judge Bianco wrote a partial concurrence for the opinion, only disagreeing with the majority's dismissal of Plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim, taking issue with the majority's conclusion that the Act satisfied rational basis review during a motion to dismiss. Judge Bianco would have concluded that the plaintiffs stated a valid Free Exercise claim and that the appropriate level of scrutiny could not be determined at that stage, further stating that the majority's analysis "has troubling implications for the future of the Free Exercise Clause".