VIII. SCOPE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Court has found that one of the sets of plaintiffs in these
consolidated cases is entitled to a religiously-based exemption to
vaccination of their child under § 2164(9). The Court will now turn to
the proper form and scope of the relief it should order in this
litigation.
The Court has ruled that the denial to the Levys of a religiously-based
exemption from the otherwise compulsory vaccination of Sandra Jasmine Levy
violates the family's constitutional rights. Section 2164(9)'s restriction
of the availability of such an exemption to "bona fide members of a
recognized religious organization" is at odds with the command of the
establishment clause and inhibits the free exercise of the Levys' rights
to live their lives in accordance with their sincerely held religious
principles. The Court, therefore, holds that the Levys are entitled to the
religious exemption from immunization that they seek.
The Court is of the opinion, however, that an order merely granting
these individual plaintiffs relief with respect to themselves would be
insufficient. In their pleadings, the Levys ask the Court not only that it
find them to fall within the scope of § 2164(9)'s exemption, but also
that it declare § 2164(9)'s limiting language to be unconstitutional. As
the Court has discussed above, supra § V, it is in full agreement with
plaintiffs' contention that the clause of § 2164(9) at issue in this
litigation is blatantly unconstitutional. The Levys' situation is far from
unique. The school district defendants have pointed out that schools are
regularly confronted with claims of religious exemptions by families who
may not actually be members of recognized organized religious groups that
oppose vaccination on doctrinal grounds, and the New York State
Commissioner of Education has taken the firm position that school
districts are to apply § 2164(9) in literal conformance with its
restrictive language, see, e.g., Matter of Van Druff, 21 Educ.
Dept. Rep. 635; Matter of Curtin, 20 Educ. Dept. Rep. 473; Matter
of Maier, 12 Educ. Dept. Rep. 56. The regulations promulgated by the
New York State Commissioner of Health, furthermore, recognize as a
legitimate basis for a religiously-based exemption from inoculation only
"a written and signed statement from the person in parental relation
to the child that such person is a bona fide member of a specified
recognized religious organization whose teachings are contrary to
immunization." The relevant regulation continues, "The principal
or person in charge of the school may require supporting documents from
the religious organization specified." l0 N.Y.C.R.R. s66.3(d).
Section 2164(9) as presently written, construed, and applied, therefore,
creates ongoing problems of constitutional magnitude for individuals
throughout New York who maintain religiously grounded opposition to
vaccination but do not belong to a religious organization recognized by
the state.
The Supreme Court has consistently endorsed the taking of broad
judicial steps to rectify the restraints on individual liberties that laws
infringing upon First Amendment freedoms impose. Where separate, lengthy
adjudications in the context of a multitude of specific factual
circumstances may well be the price of a federal courts refusal
completely to eradicate patently unconstitutional state or local
governmental action by abstaining or restricting its remedy so as to
address solely the particular facts before it, the Supreme Court has found
the price too high. The Court, for instance, struck down an overly vague
loyalty oath where the Court found it "fictional to believe that
anything less than extensive adjudications, under the impact of a variety
of factual situations, would bring the oath within the bounds of
permissible constitutional certainty." Baggett, 377 U.S. at
378, 84 S.Ct. at 1326. More recently, just last term the Court unanimously
held racially unconstitutional a resolution banning "all First
Amendment activities" within the central terminal area of Los Angeles
International Airport, stating, "[I]t is difficult to imagine that
the resolution could be limited by anything less than a series of
adjudications, and the chilling effect of the resolution on protected
speech in the meantime would make such a case-by-case adjudication
intolerable." Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los
Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., ___U.S. ___, ___, 107 S.Ct. 2568,
2572 (1987).
Section 2164(9)'s limiting clause has been on the books for over twenty
years. Despite several state court opinions attempting to apply subsection
9's religious exemption in a manner that would alleviate its
unconstitutionality, the state has steadfastly refused to modify either
the language of § 2164(9) or its interpretation of the provision. All the
while, there has remained in effect a statutory scheme that violates the
establishment clause by inhibiting the practice of certain individuals'
religion and entangling government with religion by mandating official
governmental recognition of certain religious denominations and impedes
the free exercise of religion by individuals who oppose inoculations on
religious grounds but do not belong to any "state approved"
religious group. This cannot be allowed to continue.
The Court, therefore, hereby enjoins each of the defendants from
unconstitutionally applying the religious exemption from vaccination that
§ 2164(9) creates so as to make the exemption available only to
"bona fide members of a recognized religious organization."
Defendants' restriction of the exception in such a manner violates both
religion clauses of the First Amendment. The United States Constitution
mandates that, if New York wishes to allow a religiously-based exclusion
from its otherwise compulsory program of immunization of school children,
it may not limit this exception from the program to members of specific
religious groups, but must offer the exemption to all persons who
sincerely hold religious beliefs that prohibit the inoculation of their
children by the state.
IX. DAMAGES - Wexler Decision
The Wexler Decision - Menu
wexler.doc Entire text as Word Document
wexler.txt Entire text as Text File