Case updates this week:

Monday March 11th: The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, upheld a lower court’s decision in favor of a father seeking the COVID-19 vaccine for his child in a custody case. The two parents in Asplundh v. Pendergrass have shared legal custody of their minor child since 2017, with a vaccination schedule agreed upon at the time of divorce. However, the father, Pendergrass, sought to amend the vaccination schedule to add COVID-19 in 2022, filing a petition to modify custody after he and the child’s mother, Asplundh, could not come to an agreement. Asplundh argued that it was in the child’s best interest to not be vaccinated against COVID-19 because of adverse reaction concerns, presenting evidence from an expert witness stating that the risk of harm was greater from the vaccine itself than from contracting COVID-19. However, the lower court disagreed with the conclusions of Asplundh’s expert, instead placing more weight on the Center for Disease Control’s recommendation that healthy children should receive the vaccine. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision, not finding an abuse of discretion that warranted overturning the grant, and in fact agreeing with the holding that the child’s best interest was served by receiving the vaccine.

Monday March 11th: The federal district court for the Western District of New York dismissed a challenge to New York’s vaccination requirements for children in school, specifically the recent elimination of religious exemptions. The plaintiffs in Miller v. McDonald, three Amish individuals and the private schools they run, were previously found to have violated New York’s statute requiring schools to ensure all enrollees comply with vaccination requirements. After the New York State Department of Health fined the three schools, the plaintiffs sued to enjoin the statute at issue, arguing that their First Amendment Free Exercise Rights were violated because they were required to enforce vaccine mandates despite having sincere religious objections. However, the court held that New York’s vaccine mandate scheme, including the phasing out of religious exemptions, was sufficiently similar to the one upheld in the Second Circuit’s We The Patriots USA Inc. v. Connecticut Office of Childhood Development decision as to require them to dismiss the claims.

Tuesday March 12th: The federal district court for the Middle District of Florida upheld the dismissal of another challenge to the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Couture v. Austin. One of many such claims arising from the now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccine mandates instituted in 2021, the plaintiffs, federal employees and contractors, alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the court dismissed the case as moot because the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates were rescinded in 2023, and there is no evidence that the federal government will reinstitute a mandate. Because the orders at issue are no longer in place, the court can no longer provide the remedy sought, and duly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.