In West Virginia, many public schools are facing challenges mediating the clash of personal religious beliefs with the state compulsory vaccination law (CVL). Last week, Perry v. Marteney appeared in the Fourth Circuit courts in West Virginia to determine if the state has compelling interest to not grant the Perry family a religious exemption from the CVL. Krystle and Anthony Perry sued on behalf of their child, K.P., as administrators of the school unenrolled K.P. for not complying with the state vaccination requirements. K.P. was enrolled in the Upshur County School District as a virtual student, and only ever physically entered the school for test taking purposes. The state of West Virginia’s compulsory vaccine requirement is aimed at protecting students against diseases such as polio, chickenpox, measles, meningitis, and whooping cough. The Perry’s are suing the state on the grounds that the CVL is in contradiction with their free exercise of religion because “using vaccines that scientists researched, tested and developed through the use of aborted fetal cells is at odds with their religious beliefs”.
The main issue present in this case is whether or not the compulsory vaccination law is generally applicable to all people regardless of their religion, and if it isn’t, if the state still has a compelling interest to enforce the law. The law of compulsory vaccination is applied to all students who go to Upshur County School District, in person or online, so in that way it seems to be neutral. However, the state of West Virginia has made two exceptions: those with medical exemptions, and those who are homeschooled. This is far from the norm, as stated in the brief, as West Virginia has been an outlier in vaccine exceptions, “forty-five states (plus the District of Columbia) currently offer religious exemptions to their school vaccination laws.”
One of the most salient dangers to allowing a religious exemption to the law is the threat to public health. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, measles cases spiked from 285 nationwide in 2024 to 2,255 in 2025.” Stacy Marteney, on behalf of the defense, explains how even if the compulsory state vaccination law infringes on the families religious beliefs, the law can do so because of a greater interest in protecting children from deadly diseases. Above all, parents who send their children to school should not have to worry about their children being exposed to a variety of potentially deadly contagious diseases. Defendants also argue on the basis that medical exceptions are very different from religious ones in that they are oriented directly toward the state's interest in maintaining public health.
The Perry family believes the law is not applied equally because there are some students who are able to obtain medical exemptions and others who are homeschooled who also do not have to comply with the CVL. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue that based on the precedent set in the Supreme Court decision, Fulton v City of Philadelphia, strict scrutiny should be applied to interpret their free exercise rights. Strict scrutiny means that the judges must show the state has a compelling interest for infringement on religious beliefs and the laws are narrowly tailored toward that interest. According to the West Virginia Legislature, a recent law states that strict scrutiny must be applied if religious rights have been burdened. So in this case, judges would have to provide a convincing argument that K.P. not being vaccinated poses a dangerous threat to the health and well-being of other students. While the state has claimed the vaccination policy is essential for building herd immunity within its schools, the plaintiffs have argued in their appellate brief that online students such as K.P. pose minimal risk to the in-person students saying “infectious diseases do not spread over the internet”. Furthermore, since exemptions to the law have been made on non-religious grounds, there are already students within the school who are unvaccinated that pose a greater risk to spread those diseases than K.P. learning from home. Because the coordinator of Upshur County School District unenrolled K.P. from the school, the parents now face additional indirect burdens of having to find other options to avoid penalties for not sending K.P. to school; homeschooling was not a reasonable option for them.
I believe that due to West Virginia’s medical and homeschooling vaccine exemptions that the law at hand is “facially” neutral, but not generally applicable. If the state allows some students with medical reasons to have an exemption to the law but not others for religious reasons, they are privileging secular interests over religious ones. While the secular interests of public health are of utmost importance, I do not think the court has enough of a compelling interest to argue in favor of K.P.'s vaccination. I think an especially relevant fact that should be considered is how being an online student means there is little opportunity to expose other students. There seems to be no clear and present danger to the public, especially while the state is continuing to allow other non-vaccinated individuals into the school for secular reasons.
10 comments:
I completely agree with this. The state cannot pick and choose which people they want to give exemptions to. Like you said, if they choose to give exemptions to some for medical reasons, then there will no longer be any neutrality. The Court should decide whether to remove exemptions for certain people or allow them for both medical and religious reasons. The fact that K.P. is at home is also another reason why the Court should allow an exemption, as he does not pose a danger to anyone from his home.
I agree. If unvaccinated students are allowed to be physically present, then a virtual unvaccinated student should also be allowed. Public health is obviously very important, however if K.P. is not going out in public and interacting with those he could pose a danger to, then there's no harm done. It sounds like the school should redirect their efforts to prevent diseases spreading from the unvaccinated in-person students.
I agree with your perspective, and I appreciate how you emphasize that the CVL prioritizes secular practices over religious ones. I do think that public health is a rational compelling interest for the state government, however, the driving detail for me in this case is that K.P. is an online student, and as you noted, does not impose a direct threat to other in-person students. Even if the CVL has good intentions to protect students, it is a facially-neutral law that is negatively impacting religious groups, especially given that exemptions have been made for other various reasons already.
I appreciate the argument that requiring K.P. to get vaccinated despite their religious beliefs while other students are allowed to obtain a medical exemption would prioritize secular practices over religious ones. I think it points out how difficult it is to truly obtain neutrality in a law. On the other hand, I do believe that the state has a compelling interest to require vaccination for K.P. while they do not for people with medical issues. Vaccination is necessary to maintain public health. People get medical exemptions from vaccination for reasons such as being immunocompromised. Herd immunity obtained through vaccination allows those who are immunocompromised to also be safe from the viruses that they cannot get vaccinated for.
I agree with your argument that K.P. should be granted a religious exemption from the vaccination requirements due to K.P. being a virtual student. If K.P. were a full-time in-person student, an argument could be made that K.P. 's lack of vaccination could pose a risk to other students, but being a virtual student, K.P. has very minimal contact with the rest of the school and is not a threat to public health and safety.
I found your argument to be very insightful. I think that K.P. should not be required to be vaccinated given K.P.'s condition as an online student. If K.P. were not an online student, I believe that public health is a compelling interest and would therefore take priority over religous beliefs. This entire case definitely speaks on the difficultly of maintaining neutrality, because the case weighs and decides the priority of matters that are difficult to determine.
I appreciate your argument. It made me question my initial thoughts as I believed that K.P. should be included in the vaccine laws. After learning that K.P. was a virtual student, you provided a sound argument in explaining the government's law as facially neutral, but not realistically applicable. I agree. Since the student is in minimal contact with their peers, then it appears an exemption for religious belief should be allowed. I am not sure I would feel the same if K.P. was a full time student, however.
Rudy, I agree with your argument entirely. The CVL is clearly prioritizing secular interests and/or practices over religious beliefs, and that's far from neutral. There should be no difference between a student learning remotely and a student who is homeschooled. How could they possibly be treated differently when they are learning from the same seat at home? And that goes without mentioning students who are exempt from the CVL for medical reasons, but could be potentially exposing students they interact with daily. It is unfair for K.P. and his family to now search for an immediate alternative.
I agree with the argument posed by the commenter and the others. I think that because K.P is in homeschooling and doesn't pose a harm to other students (and because other students have also received exemptions) which means that the interests of the court are indeed not neutral. The fundamentals of education are still being respected, but to expect a student who is occupying space in their home to get a vaccination, I think is an overbreach.
Post a Comment