The following is from Children’s Health Defense.

A federal appeals court ruled that West Virginia can enforce its school vaccine mandate without offering religious exemptions, overturning a lower court decision that had allowed an unvaccinated student to remain enrolled in an online public school.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit found the state’s vaccination requirement does not violate the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.

The case was brought by Anthony and Krystle Perry on behalf of their daughter, who was enrolled in West Virginia Virtual Academy but was later disenrolled after officials determined she was not fully vaccinated. The parents argued vaccination conflicted with their Christian beliefs and sought a religious exemption, which state law does not provide.

West Virginia is one of a small number of states that do not allow religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements.

A lower court had previously sided with the family and issued an injunction allowing the child to continue attending school while the case proceeded. The appeals court reversed that decision, ruling the parents are unlikely to succeed on their constitutional claim.

Legal experts cited in the case said the ruling does not reflect what they describe as a shifting legal landscape around religious exemptions. They pointed to recent Supreme Court decisions that they say require courts to apply a higher standard, known as “strict scrutiny,” when evaluating such claims.

“The majority opinion here fails to recognize the importance of recent Supreme Court decisions Mahmoud v. Taylor and Miller v. McDonald, in particular.”
— Kim Mack Rosenberg, Children’s Health Defense

Writing for the majority, Judge Harvie Wilkinson said states have broad authority to protect public health, including through vaccine mandates.

He cited longstanding precedent, including the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision, and said the law is “neutral and generally applicable,” meaning it does not target religion and therefore does not require exemptions.

The court also rejected arguments that allowing medical exemptions but not religious ones makes the law unconstitutional, stating that medical exemptions are based on health considerations and do not undermine the state’s goals.

Attorneys for the family argued vaccine requirements should not apply to virtual students who are not physically present in classrooms. The court disagreed, saying online students remain part of the school system and may still interact with others.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Paul Niemeyer argued the policy places an unfair burden on families with religious objections.

He noted that while West Virginia allows alternatives such as homeschooling and learning pods, the family in this case was unable to pursue those options due to their circumstances.

“The state’s policy treats public-school virtual students who assert a religious objection to vaccination differently than other similarly situated children.”
— Judge Paul Niemeyer

Niemeyer argued the case should be evaluated under strict scrutiny and said the ruling forces parents to choose between public education and their religious beliefs.

The case will now return to a lower court, but without the injunction that had allowed the student to attend school.

Separately, a legal dispute continues over a 2025 executive order issued by Gov. Patrick Morrisey allowing religious exemptions. State education officials have directed schools to continue following existing law, and that case is now before the West Virginia Supreme Court.

For more information, read the full article here.