22 State Attorneys General Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold Religious Exemptions in Amish Schools
Over 20 state attorneys general submitted briefs in support of Amish parents and schools who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after lower courts rejected their lawsuit.
Over 20 state attorneys general submitted briefs in support of Amish parents and schools who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after lower courts rejected their lawsuit challenging New York’s ban on religious exemptions to vaccination mandates.
In June 2023, two Amish parents, three Amish schools and a representative of all Amish schools in New York sued the New York state commissioners of Health and Education after the state barred unvaccinated children from attending classes and fined the three schools for violating the state’s vaccination requirement.
According to the complaint, New York’s laws violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly, and conflict with federal judicial precedent and the laws of over 40 states that permit religious exemptions for students.
Amish schools do not require proof of vaccination from students, the complaint stated.
“At its heart, [the lawsuit] is about whether the government must respect religious exemptions to vaccine mandates,” said Greg Glaser, one of the attorneys representing the parents and schools.
“The number of state attorneys general filing amicus briefs in support of our petition is tremendously significant,” Glaser said. “The typical case has zero amicus briefs from a state attorney general.”
Glaser said it’s notable if five state attorneys general file. More than 10 is “quite rare, and it guarantees the case is high-profile and of great national interest.”
Glaser added:
“This is not just a New York issue, nor is it limited to vaccines. It’s a national battle over the meaning of religious freedom.
“These attorneys general understand that if this ruling is left to stand, it gives a green light to state legislatures to target and dismantle religious freedom they find politically inconvenient.”
Attorneys general cite ‘growing hostility toward religious views’
In 2019, New York passed legislation prohibiting religious exemptions. Three other states — California, Connecticut and Maine — also do not recognize religious exemptions.
In March 2024, a lower federal court denied a request by the Amish schools for an injunction against New York and dismissed their lawsuit. In March 2025, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling.
In July, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. They asked the court to resolve conflicting rulings on religious exemptions from different federal appeals courts and to resolve the distinction between medical and religious exemptions, which they argue is discriminatory.
New York does not recognize religious exemptions, but it does permit “discretionary” medical exemptions, according to the plaintiffs.
Attorneys general from 22 states filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs.
Alabama’s attorney general filed a brief on behalf of 21 states that addressed a “trend” of “growing hostility toward religious views” in states like New York:
“If it is ‘neutral and generally applicable’ for New York legislators to eliminate religious accommodations with such open disdain for the beliefs they protect, then it is not just New York’s Amish community under threat. …
“To be sure, States are generally free to try more stringent public-health regimes, but not by burdening only religiously motivated conduct, and especially not by interfering with the religious education and upbringing of children.”
In a separate brief, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said, “44 States and the District of Columbia have protected religious exemptions to compelled vaccination in schools. Their experience has shown that ensuring public health need not come at the cost of sacrificing religious freedom.”
Schools faced ‘crippling financial penalties’
According to the original complaint, the plaintiffs “are all sincere adherents to the Amish belief system, which includes educating their children in the Amish way, with Amish teachers, in Amish schools, on Amish owned property.”
This belief system includes a religious objection to vaccination.
“Given their commitment to a century’s old way of life, it is hardly surprising that many Amish maintain profound religious objections to vaccines,” the complaint stated.
However, New York levied “crippling financial penalties” against three schools for violating state law by not requiring proof of vaccination, according to the 2023 complaint.
The fines were $52,000 against Dygert Road School, $46,000 against Twin Mountains School and $20,000 against Shady Lane School.
“Because the schools are not publicly funded and have no reserve cash, they are unable to pay the penalties,” the complaint stated.
Under threat of even larger penalties in the future, the schools will not be able to continue operating and students “will no longer receive the parochial education in a group setting that comports with their community’s religious beliefs,” the complaint said.
The plaintiffs said the threat of additional penalties is not enough to compel them to vaccinate their children:
“For the avoidance of all doubt, Plaintiffs do not, will not, and cannot comply with the Compulsory Vaccination Law and thus face the prospect of current and additional enforcement, while, for their parts, Defendants have demonstrated a zealous readiness and willingness to enforce that law against them, both in the past, and in the future.”
New York ‘engaged in a cruel irony’ when it denied religious exemptions
In her March 2024 ruling, Chief Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments. She dismissed the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim” and said the plaintiffs lacked “subject matter jurisdiction.”
In its March 2025 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, saying the plaintiffs “failed to allege a constitutional violation” and their remaining arguments were “without merit.”
“Amish isolation does not protect their communities from disease,” the ruling added, citing “the record of measles, pertussis, tetanus, and/or polio recently spreading in certain Amish communities across the nation and in New York.”
“Thus, the unique attributes of Amish communities do not present a lesser risk as it pertains to the State’s interest in protecting New Yorkers … from disease,” the ruling stated.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs disputed the 2nd Circuit’s ruling and the basis of the 2019 New York law repealing religious exemptions, which came on the heels of a measles outbreak centered in New York’s Rockland County. The appeal stated that Amish communities have not experienced such outbreaks.
Glaser said the Amish children in question, because of their unvaccinated status, “enjoy remarkably robust health” and have avoided many of the chronic health conditions prevalent among U.S. children. He said:
“The state of New York is engaged in a cruel irony because their vaccine mandate forces these healthy children to introduce pharmaceutical products into their bodies against their core religious beliefs. And the whole exercise is futile, to protect against diseases that are statistically absent in their isolated communities.
“It gets worse, because the government of New York turns a blind eye to the documented health crises prevalent in the fully vaccinated general population. The net result is, the state of New York penalizes purity and health.”
In the two preceding rulings in the case, the courts found that New York’s mandatory vaccination law is subject to rational basis review. This means the government is presumed to have acted rationally and in defense of a legitimate state interest where no fundamental rights are at issue.
However, the plaintiffs argued in their appeal to the Supreme Court that the New York law should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. This is a more stringent judicial standard requiring the government to prove a law is constitutional, necessary to serve a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The plaintiffs pointed to other federal appeals court rulings that say similar state laws are subject to strict scrutiny. They said the 2nd Circuit ruling conflicts with these rulings and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The plaintiffs also said New York’s acceptance of medical exemptions but not religious exemptions benefits secular individuals over non-secular ones, which amounts to religious discrimination.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Supreme Court ruling could be ‘an absolute game-changer’
The U.S. Supreme Court “historically has been protective of the Amish” and their way of life based on its “sincerity and unique nature,” Glaser said.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would be “an absolute game-changer” for religious exemptions in New York and nationally, he said.
Glaser added:
“It would immediately restore religious freedom to parents in New York and set a binding national precedent in Maine, California and Connecticut. The powerful Supreme Court precedent would also act as a shield against future legislative attempts to remove religious exemptions.”
Glaser said states and other parties can file amicus briefs until next month.
“Extremist vaccine zealot states,” including California, Connecticut and Maine, “are likely to form their own coalition and file their own amicus briefs trying to deepen the divide in our country,” he said.
The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court comes as religious exemptions are being contested judicially or legislatively in several states, while lawmakers in some states are seeking to increase public awareness of the right to obtain an exemption.
Earlier this week, Florida went further by announcing an end to all vaccine mandates in the state and the elimination of vaccination requirements for school attendance.
In July, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 67,000 pediatricians, called for an end to religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions for children attending daycare and school in the U.S.
But in an announcement Thursday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would require state participants in the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines to children from low-income families, to “respect state religious and conscience exemptions from vaccine mandates.”
Recent polls show rising public support for religious exemptions and a review of the childhood immunization schedule.
A poll of over 1,000 registered voters conducted June 24-25 by John Zogby Strategies showed that 60% of parents with young children supported reviewing the current childhood vaccine schedule.
A survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in January showed that public support for religious exemptions has nearly doubled in the last six years.
A July 2024 Gallup poll found that support for mandatory school vaccination has declined in recent years.
Finally, and the Amish are totally correct!
Dr Nass— Thank you for reporting.