|
The Wexler Decision
IV. STANDING
The state defendants also contend that, even if the Court declines to
abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the Sherrs and Levys' cases, the
Court should dismiss plaintiffs' action for lack of standing. Defendants'
position essentially boils down to the following: § 2164 provides for
mandatory immunization of school children against certain diseases and
admits of only two exceptions, i.e., if a licensed physician certifies
that vaccination may be detrimental to a given child's health or if a
child's parents (or guardian) are "bona fide members of a recognized
religious organization" whose doctrines prohibit inoculations.
Plaintiffs, who have produced no medical certification that compliance
with § 2164's vaccination requirement would be physically harmful to
their children and who concede that they are not members of any
"recognized religious organization" and thus fall outside the
literal language of § 2164(9)'s religious exception, seek that the Court
declare their children to be entitled to an exemption from immunization on
religious grounds and hold the New York statute's limitation of
religiously-based exemptions to "bona fide members of a recognized
religious organization" violative of the First Amendment's guarantees
of religious liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment's promise to all persons
of equal protection of the law. If the Court deems plaintiffs' claims to
possess merit, defendants argue, the end result will be that § 2164(9)
will necessarily be struck down in its entirety. Accordingly, even if
plaintiffs were to obtain a favorable ruling by the Court in the form of a
declaration of the invalidity of the statutory exemption, the Sherr and
Levy children would still be subject to vaccination under a § 2164 that
would lack any religious exception to immunization. Thus, the state
defendants conclude, any injury plaintiffs allege cannot be redressed by
the remedies that they seek from the Court, and they therefore lack any
standing to maintain the lawsuits they have brought before the Court.
Defendants' argument misconstrues the nature of the Sherrs and Levys'
actions. Plaintiffs do not seek that § 2164(9) be completely invalidated;
rather, they question the legitimacy solely of that portion of § 2164(9)
which limits religious exemptions to "bona fide members of a
recognized religious organization." A judicial decision in
plaintiffs' favor would entail an order declaring the limitation contained
in the clause of § 2164(9) at issue to be improper and holding plaintiffs
to be entitled to a religious exemption from vaccination. N.Y. Pub. Health
L. § 5000 states that:
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this chapter
shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder
thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence,
paragraph, section, or part thereof, directly involved in the
controversy in which such judgment shall be entered.
See also McCartney v. Austin, 31 A.D.2d 370, 298 N.Y.S.2d 26 (3d
Dep't 1969).
Under § 5000, only the specific clause of § 2164(9) would be void,
not the entire subsection. As plaintiffs point out, acceptance of the
state defendants' standing argument would mean that persons who feel that
the religious exception § 2164 provides is structured and being applied
in an unconstitutional and discriminatory manner would be completely
barred from attempting to vindicate their rights in a federal, and by
logical extension, state court, and thus would lack any judicial forum for
their efforts to obtain the benefit of the religiously-based exception
from immunization that the New York legislature has decided to grant state
citizens.
V. CONSTITUTIONALITY - Wexler Decision
The Wexler Decision - Menu
wexler.doc Entire text as Word Document
wexler.txt Entire text as Text File
|
|