No. 21-1003

F. F., as Parent of Y. F., et al. v. New York, et al.

Lower Court: New York
Docketed: 2022-01-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: constitutional-rights first-amendment free-exercise free-exercise-clause narrow-tailoring religious-bias religious-exemption school-vaccination strict-scrutiny vaccination-requirement
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-05-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does New York's religious exemption repeal violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In June 2019, New York State repealed the longstanding religious exemption to its school vaccination requirement, leaving in place a medical exemption. The vaccination scheme does not require students over 18, or any other adult in the school environment, to be vaccinated. In supporting the repeal, various legislators, including leadership and the law’s sponsors, made religiously hostile comments, rejecting the notion of a true religious objection to vaccination and belittling such objectors as “anti-vaxxers” and misguided fools. As a result of the repeal, thousands of children who were previously exempted from the vaccine requirement based on their religions objections have been evicted from all public, private and religious schools and put in the position of choosing between their religious beliefs and access to school-based education. Does New York’s religious exemption repeal violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause because (1) either (a) it allows for secular exemptions and, thus, is not generally applicable, or (b) its enactment was motivated by religious bias and, thus, it is not neutral; and (2) it is both underand over-inclusive and, thus, not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest?

Docket Entries

2022-05-23
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
2022-04-28
Reply of petitioners F.F., as Parent of Y.F., et al., filed.
2022-04-15
Brief of respondents New York, et al. in opposition filed.
2022-03-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 15, 2022.
2022-03-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 16, 2022 to April 15, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-31
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 16, 2022.
2022-01-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 14, 2022 to March 16, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 14, 2022)

Attorneys

F.F., as Parent of Y.F., et al.
Stephen BergsteinBergstein & Ullrich, Petitioner
Stephen BergsteinBergstein & Ullrich, Petitioner
New York, et al.
Barbara Dale UnderwoodSolicitor General, Respondent
Barbara Dale UnderwoodSolicitor General, Respondent