Second Circuit upholds New York's repeal of religious exemption for immunizations |
On Board Online • July 20, 2026
By Shubh N. McTague
Staff Counsel
In Miller v. McDonald, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with jurisdiction over New York, upheld the state's repeal of the religious exemption for school immunizations for the second time.
State law allowed for a nonmedical exemption to required school immunizations based on "sincere religious beliefs" of the parent or guardian until 2019, when the law was amended to repeal the religious exemption. The amendment did not affect, and kept in place, the medical exemption (for which a physician must determine that an otherwise required vaccination could be detrimental to the child's health along with other information required by law).
Members of the Amish community filed a lawsuit claiming the change in the law violated their free exercise of religion rights under the U.S. Constitution.
In March 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed the lawsuit, finding that New York's Public Health Law section 2164, which applies to school immunizations, was neutral with respect to religion and generally applicable to all students. The district court found that this satisfied a rational basis review and did not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, and the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in March 2025.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment and asked the Second Circuit to consider the viability of the claim in light of the high court's decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor (which involved parents wanting to opt-out their children of the teaching of certain LGBTQ+ books for certain grade levels based on the parents' religious beliefs).
On June 30, 2026, the Second Circuit again upheld the repeal of the religious exemption, finding not only that it did not violate the First Amendment, but that Mahmoud did not alter its decision. Specifically, the court stated: "Section 2164 does not regulate what children are taught, does not require them to affirm any belief, does not expose them to state-selected instruction contrary to their parents' faith, and does not enlist school officials to displace parental religious formation. It imposes a health-and-safety condition on in-person school attendance to reduce the spread of communicable disease . The burden may be serious, but it is not the kind of state interference with a child's religious development that triggered strict scrutiny in . . . Mahmoud."
Accordingly, the Second Circuit again affirmed the ruling of the district court.
Editor's note: Attend NYSSBA's Summer Law Conference to learn more about the practical implications of this decision for school districts.