Four California mothers argue that the law violates the First Amendment by denying religious exemptions while granting numerous secular exemptions, such as those for independent study and individualized education programs.
Appellant’s counsel Erin Mercino urged the court to apply strict scrutiny, citing recent Supreme Court precedent in Mahmood v. Taylor and the grant of certiorari and remand in Miller v. McDonald.
Mercino contended that the district court erred by applying rational basis review, arguing that the existence of secular exemptions renders the law not generally applicable under Fulton and Tandon.
The state of California defended the mandate as a cornerstone of public health safety, asserting that rational basis review is the correct standard for compulsory immunization laws.
State counsel Andra Lim argued that the law is neutral and generally applicable, pointing to the significant increase in personal belief exemptions prior to SB 277 and the subsequent measles outbreak at Disneyland.
Judges questioned the comparability of secular exemptions, such as the 30-day conditional enrollment for students with missing records, to the permanent religious exemptions sought by the plaintiffs.
The state maintained that the religious exemption is distinguishable because it is often permanent, whereas secular exemptions like conditional enrollment are temporary measures to achieve compliance.
The court also probed the applicability of Mahmood v. Taylor, with the state arguing the case is distinguishable because it involved ideological indoctrination rather than public health measures.
The matter has been submitted for decision, with the court now tasked with determining the appropriate level of scrutiny for the vaccination mandate.