On August 13th, in response to the growing Covid-19 pandemic, the Ohio Department of Health Interim Director Lance Himes signed into effect an order mandating that all children in educational settings from kindergarten to 12th grade must have on a face covering. In response, dozens of families have joined a suit against the Ohio Health Director stating that state-imposed mask wearing requirements infringes on their religious beliefs and ability as parents to raise their child as they desire. The order did provide exemptions to those with disabilities, mental health conditions or medical conditions and most relevant to this case was an exemption for students who by wearing a face mask it would go against an established requirement of their religion. However, one of the key parents in the case, Jennifer Miller, attempted to use this religious exemption but was denied with the state claiming that her complaint was not based on an "established religious requirement” rather it was simply a religious belief and that these are two separate entities. The plaintiffs are concerned that the state is acting as a "church court" deciding what is an established religious requirement versus a religious belief which is not the role of the government. Additionally, they are arguing that forcing a child to wear a mask is a violation of privacy that eradicates the child’s sense of identity and personality. Also, stating that masks have become symbolic of certain political messages and by wearing a mask these children are forced to support a political message that could be the opposite of their parent’s views and beliefs.
The primary issue of this case, Miller v Hines, is whether or not this order infringes on the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing students to wear masks in school. Does the government have the right to define the difference between a religious belief versus a religious requirement? Is wearing a mask a religious/political statement that can contradict with families’ views and beliefs?
One of my concerns with this case is the power the state government has granted itself with the religious exemption in this order allowing for the state to decide what constitutes a religious requirement and how it is different than a religious belief. The government, state or federal, is supposed to be neutral in affairs regarding religion which is asserted in numerous supreme court cases most importantly in McGowan v Maryland. By defining what an established religious requirement is and using it in the application of a law, the government is no longer neutral. Jennifer Miller, one of the plaintiffs, tried to utilize the religious exemption in the face covering mandate but was rejected with the government stating her complaint was a belief and not a requirement. What criteria was used to make this decision? Who made this decision- a single person or a council? Those making the decision between requirement and belief could also have bias towards certain religions and then we would have a case for violation of the establishment clause. This exemption while most likely made to avoid potential issues with the first amendment however it made everything worse.
My next concern is the point where the plaintiffs argue that masks have become symbols for certain political ideas and that by enforcing the wearing of facial coverings you are forcing students to promote beliefs that are not theirs or their families. In the official complaint, to support their claim of the political nature of the mask the plaintiffs state that the Biden campaign has made a black mask a symbol of his campaign thus it can be assumed that anyone who wears a mask must be supporting Biden. The plaintiffs also believe that the masks are a symbol of the government’s poor response to the Covid-19 pandemic and supports the idea to panic rather than to remain calm. While wearing a mask may contradict your beliefs the government has the power to intervene when it is for peace and order. This has been suggested in numerous documents and decisions over the years most historical being Thomas Jefferson’s, Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, which states “the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order”. Attempting to contain a pandemic and protect U.S. citizens is the top priority right now in the government and wearing a mask is a key part of attempting to create a solution. Not wearing a mask could potentially expose hundreds of people to Covid-19 and contribute to the spread of the disease thus the government has the right in emergency situations to regulate your wearing of a mask.
Overall, I believe the original intentions of this order were constitutional but failed in its execution. By creating an exemption that forces government officials to evaluate whether or not your religious complaint affects a religious requirement or a religious belief and essentially defining both concepts the school face covering mandate is unconstitutional under the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
By: Rachel W
8 comments:
I agree with your response and analysis as well. Although I agree with the court in the sense that it does seem that their motivation is not truly religious and rather is political, the Supreme Court has made clear that it is not to decide what is religious from what is not and so, I think that is where the court really made an error. However, that being said I still do ultimately agree with the decision because if these students are not wearing masks it would pose a serious threat to the health of other students and would lead to a slippery slope where many people would claim they have a religious reason for not wearing a mask.
As much as the state government has a compelling interest to enforce the mask wearing mandate, I agree that their execution failed, as the government does not have the jurisdiction to determine what is a religious requirement or belief. This case and the actions of the government remind me of the idea of truth or falsity, and sincerity. The question is, where do they draw the line in determining what constitutes as a religious requirement and a simple belief. As important as it is to ensure public safety through the act of mask wearing, I would have to agree with the plaintiffs, for the sole reason that the government determining what is a requirement infringes upon the free exercise rights of a person. I do not however agree with the plaintiff's accusations that their children would be forced to agree with a political standpoint that goes against their beliefs, as that is far fetched from the discussion of religion in this case. If the school district did not allow any religious exemption at all, I think they would have a better case arguing for a compelling state interest to protect the people. However, since they included the fact that students could be exempt from mask wearing because of a religious requirement, they do not have the constitutionality to decide whether a student has to wear a mask or not based on religious requirement or belief.
Though I firmly believe that the intentions of the government were right, as Jenny and Rachel said, it was the execution that was unconstitutional. Making a decision about what is a "religious requirement" versus a "religious belief" has no real basis, and it brings the case down the same rabbit hole as McGowan v. Maryland. Not to mention, some religions do not have distinguished explanations on the difference between beliefs versus requirements; leaving this decision up to the courts is too grey of an area. I also want to mention that this reminds me of the Patrick Murphy case (the death row inmate in Texas who filed a report that he had been denied a religious advisor due to him being Buddhist, 2 days before his sentencing), in the way that I think the parents are using religion as a vehicle to have their children excused from wearing masks. Again, I do not think it holds much relevancy in the case, but I wanted to note the similarity between the two.
I agree with your analysis, giving this religious exemption and emphasizing a difference in religious belief and religious requirement gives too much power to a civil magistrate to evaluate what in religions are beliefs or requirements. The law should not even have a religious exemption in the first place, it is clear that the enactment of this law might burden some people's religions but if they created the law and denied one of the parents because it is a belief, then they are clearly okay burdening religion for the public good of protection. Wearing a mask could contradict religious statements but a health crisis can constitutionally limit one's free exercise. It also doesn't seem as good an argument to say that wearing a mask forces a political statement because every law is a political statement.
I disagree with the author because I think the difference between a religious requirement and belief is actually essential and works to facilitate a good relationship between Church and State. If these people could prove that not wearing a mask was a key tenet of their religion, then the State is saying that would be respected, but instead the plaintiffs are taking a religious belief and using it as a way to get their children out of wearing masks, which is a threat to the safety of those around them. If any religious belief were allowed to exempt a person from public policies, then that would be an entanglement between Church and State and would favor religion. They are allowed to continue their beliefs, but not put the public in danger.
I agree the state is acting as a “church court” by deciding what is an established religious requirement
versus a religious belief which is not the role of the government. This is an infringement of the free
exercise clause of the first amendment since the court, which is the state, is the ultimate arbiter of
whether something is an established requirement of a religion or not.
The granting of the religious exemption was proper and the objective of the order was also proper to the
extent it was trying to stop the spread of COVID-19. However, by deciding whether an act was an
established requirement of a religion or not went too far. The order could have been more neutral with
respect to religion and obtained the same effect. For example, the order could have said that to attend
school in person one had to wear a mask and if that is against your established religious requirement
then you could stay from home and attend classes remotely through Zoom. The order could have
mandated that the school provide remote access to students who do not want to wear a mask through
Zoom or something similar.
I think in this specific case, public health and safety is really the main concern. I do agree that wearing a mask in order to promote/protect public health should take precedent over one's religious beliefs. This is only because I don't see how masks and religion truly correlate in any way. However, I do also understand that the state is riding a very thin line by trying to decide what is an established religious requirement rather than just a religious belief. I do not think they have the ability to do this, and therefore agree with the author that the state is acting as a church court in this particular case. It is frustrating considering that the original orders was constitutional and made sense, but its execution was poor and messy.
I was challenged by this case but found your analysis very persuasive. I do believe that the government has the compelling state interest to create a mask mandate in order to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus, however, I agree that this exemption creates issues. In creating a religious exemption, the state put itself in the position to evaluate citizens' religious beliefs and determine which are relevant or string enough to warrant an exemption; this presents an issue of entanglement between the government and religion. In trying to accommodate religious objections, the state manufactured a constitutional issue.
Post a Comment