The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge to many people globally. There has been much controversy on individual autonomy, whether it be religious or not, and the public health of our states and nation as a whole. In Resurrection School v. Gordon, a suit was filed on October 22nd, 2020 in a Michigan federal district court challenging state COVID-19 orders requiring students to wear masks during the school day. Resurrection School, a Catholic school, sued Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Director Robert Gordon for his mandate requiring mask wearing in schools throughout the school day. The parents of students at Resurrection school are the plaintiffs of the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs are urging the U.S. District Court Judge to strike down the “unreasonable” demand for schools to require mask wearing during the day, arguing that it’s damaging developmentally and religiously. One of the Plaintiff’s asserted that requiring his young children “to wear facial coverings is hindering the formation of these bonds and prevents the body of Christ from freely associating…” Another Plaintiff commented that “Wearing a mask conveys the message that the wearer has surrendered his or her freedom to the government, particularly in light of the facts of this current declared pandemic… the wearing of a mask is a form of symbolic speech.” Essentially, the Plaintiffs are arguing that a mask shields their humanity, masking the image that God has created, and that it is disruptive to creating bonds and relations with others.
Under Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s earlier executive order, elementary students didn’t have to wear masks while seated in class, only during transition periods. Later on, Governor Whitmer and DHHS Director Gordon’s order made it mandatory for students to wear masks at all times while learning. One parent in the lawsuit has a child with speech issues, claiming that this makes it more difficult for them to learn. They stated that “Wearing a facial covering exacerbates her struggles with speech and impedes her teacher’s ability to see her mouth to determine if her mouth is in the proper position to say letters and sounds correctly.” Another parent had a child “highly susceptible to respiratory infections” who has breathing issues but doesn’t meet the level of getting a medical exemption. The student had to be pulled from school because they couldn’t wear their mask all day long. Thus, the question at hand is whether the state of Michigan requiring Resurrection school, and schools in general, to wear masks during the entire school day produces a substantial burden on religion.
In recent COVID-19 religious rights cases, the pandemic has forced religious organizations to change the method of their services. In Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills and Los Angeles County v. Grace Community Church, it was decided that the government is not discriminating against religion, but merely doing what’s best for the public health crisis. These cases parallel the issue at hand because the religious organizations, and school in this case, claim that the COVID-19 mandates produce a significant burden on their right to freely practice their religion effectively.
The Sherbert test developed through the Sherbert v. Verner case, demonstrates that the government needs to show a compelling interest and it tests to determine if an individual’s right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. In reference to the Sherbert test, the Plaintiffs have a claim involving a sincere religious belief, however, I do not think that DHHS Director Gordon’s mandate of mask wearing produces a substantial burden on the Plaintiff’s ability to act on their belief. I believe that there is a compelling state interest to mandate mask wearing during the entire school day that has pursued the interest in a least restrictive manner. Not requiring mask wearing in classrooms should not be a least restrictive means since it puts the public health at risk, especially those that are immunocompromised. As Director of DHHS, with a credible work and education history, Gordon should know what is best for his community and is well-versed in the education realm.
Similar to Employment Division v. Smith, I believe that the state of Michigan made the right call to preserve the safety and security of its state. I also feel as if the school can find ways of effectively bonding with one another with masks on to prioritize the safety of others, especially because it is recommended by the CDC. In reference to what was said about the mask being a form of symbolic speech, I believe that the health and safety of all individuals should be prioritized over religious concerns, or individual autonomy, in the midst of a pandemic when those at risk are children and educators. However, I do think that the state could potentially excuse some students from wearing masks in the classrooms, such as those with respiratory issues and possibly those with speech issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment