In October 2021, former Washington State Football Coach Nick Rolovich was fired because he refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Rolovich had claimed that as a Catholic, he was exempt from the state’s vaccine mandate, but his exemption request was denied by the school, which eventually led to his termination when he still refused to get the vaccine. In 2021, Washington State had given religious and medical exemptions for the vaccine mandate, but not ones based on personal and philosophical reasoning. Washington State found that Rolovich’s religious convictions were not sincere and thus did not provide him with a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2022, Rolovich filed litigation against the school over the denial of the religious exemption, where they deemed his beliefs as not being sincere. Fast forward a few years, in January 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice ruled that Washington State could not accommodate Rolovich’s religious exemption without undue hardship because of his position that involves him directly interacting with students, coworkers, donors, the media, and others. In other words, the judge is suggesting that this accommodation would pose a significant burden for the school. Furthermore, the judge added that in thousands of pages of evidence, there were many examples of Rolovich expressing secular concerns about the vaccine, but not religious ones, which aligned with Washington State's previous assessment of Rolovich’s religious beliefs when he filed for a religious exemption. Ultimately, the judge reaffirmed and justified Washington State University’s decision to fire Rolovich.
Although the original lawsuit was filed nearly five years ago, Becket Law has stepped in to help Rolovich appeal his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Becket Law explains that Patrick Chun, former Washington State athletic director, exhibited hostile actions toward Rolovich when Rolovich discussed his intentions of applying for a religious exemption that would go through a blind review process by the school. Despite these hostile actions, Rolovich submitted his religious exemption proposal, which was later approved because the review board found his religious views were sincerely held. However, Becket Law says that Chun and others in the athletics department asked the school to reverse its approval by questioning the sincerity and religious nature of his beliefs. Washington State University’s Environmental Health and Safety department proposed accommodations to the athletics department, but they were rejected. Becket Law, when it comes to their future litigation, is painting this case as one that is an attack on individual beliefs, and they are looking to prove that Rolovich’s religious beliefs are sincere. Ultimately, I believe the main issue in this case is whether Washington State University violated Nick Rolovich’s right to Free Exercise by denying him a religious exemption because they deemed his religious beliefs to be insincere.
United States v. Ballard (1944) applies to Rolovich’s case because it set a precedent for examining the sincerity of religious beliefs. In this case, Guy Ballard was charged with mail fraud by preaching a religion that the lower court accused Ballard of knowing was false. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that religion should be determined by the sincerity of the belief, not by whether it is true or false. The court pointed out that if Ballard’s religion was to be put on trial, then the same would have to be done for other organized religions. This precedent applies to Rolovich’s case as he and Becket Law are looking to prove the sincerity of his religious beliefs as they pursue further litigation. The Court can not tell him his beliefs are false, but they can certainly examine how sincerely he holds them and if they are sincere enough to have been awarded a religious exemption. However, it seems that this might be a difficult feat given that Rolovich has only expressed secular reasons for not getting the vaccine, and not religious ones.
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) is worth including in this discussion as the Supreme Court, in its majority opinion, explained that the Cantwells' religious messaging, while offensive to some, did not threaten physical harm to any individuals and was protected by the First Amendment. This case helped establish protection for an individual’s religious beliefs against state action, which is similar to what Rolovich is fighting in his case as he fights for religious protection against the State of Washington’s COVID vaccine mandate. Cantwell draws many parallels to Rolovich’s case, with the most notable being that they are Free Exercise issues, but I think there is a glaring difference between them, which is that Rolovich’s action could lead to physical harm. Without obtaining the vaccine, Rolovich was putting everyone else at risk because he had an increased chance of contracting the virus and spreading it to others in the community. While this is up for argument, I believe that the COVID vaccine mandate is a neutral policy that has the secular intention of protecting people from public health threats like COVID, and Rolovich was contributing to this threat by not getting vaccinated.
In the end, I side with the U.S. District Court’s decision that Washington State was justified in firing Nick Rolovich. I do not think Rolovich deserved a religious exemption, as evidence suggests that he was expressing secular concerns about the COVID vaccine to his family, friends, and coworkers rather than expressing religious concerns about it. There is seemingly a lack of consistency in his expression of his beliefs, which I think is needed to earn a religious exemption from this vaccine mandate that has secular intentions of minimizing a public health threat. From the evidence I gathered for this blog post, it seems that Rolovich had turned to his Catholic faith as a last-ditch effort to earn an exemption from the vaccine mandate. While Ballard helped clarify that religious beliefs should be judged based on sincerity, it is still difficult to determine an individual's sincerity toward religion, as there is a lot of nuance involved in these types of cases. However, in this case, I find that the evidence presented in the discovery phase clearly shows that Rolovich’s reservations about the vaccine are purely secular. Unless Becket Law is able to produce new evidence to prove Rolovich’s sincerity, I think that this decision will continue to stand as they continue to pursue further litigation.
Sources:
https://becketfund.org/case/rolovich-v-washington-state-university/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/310us296
No comments:
Post a Comment