Supreme Court Signals New Skepticism Toward Vaccine Mandates

Dr. Simone Gold: “No state has the authority to violate conscience, destroy livelihoods, or force medical compliance."

The U.S. Supreme Court is showing signs that it may be ready to rein in vaccine mandates, after taking significant action this week in two high-profile legal battles out of New York.

On Monday, the Court issued a major procedural order in Miller v. McDonald, a case brought by Amish families challenging New York’s 2019 repeal of religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements. The change came after a spike in measles cases, and Amish schools—consistent with their longstanding religious practices—refused to enforce vaccine mandates. The state fined them, and the families sued.

The Amish argue that New York’s requirements violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects parents’ rights to direct their children’s medical and religious upbringing. They say the state forced an impossible choice: vaccinate children against their religious beliefs or deny them the education their faith requires.

Both the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, ruling that vaccine mandates do not interfere with Amish religious practice and that exemptions pose a risk to public health by undermining herd immunity.

But the Supreme Court has now issued a “grant, vacate, and remand” (GVR) order, instructing the lower court to revisit the case in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a June decision from Maryland in which the Court expanded protections for parental rights and religious freedom. The GVR wipes out the lower court’s ruling and requires a fresh review using stricter First Amendment standards related to religious liberty and coercion.

The Court also took an unusual step in a separate case, Does v. Hochul, involving former New York healthcare workers who were denied religious exemptions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine mandates. The state initially allowed the exemptions but later revoked them. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General (CVSG)—a move reserved for cases the justices view as legally complex, nationally significant, or both. The Court is asking the Trump administration to weigh in before deciding whether to take the case.

Both developments were welcomed by medical-freedom advocates, including America’s Frontline Doctors, which has supported plaintiffs in both cases.

“From the outset of the COVID mandate era, America’s Frontline Doctors fought back in court,” Dr. Simone Gold, the group’s founder and president, said in a statement. “In 2021, AFLDS filed many lawsuits to stop unlawful vaccine mandates and to defend healthcare workers threatened with termination for refusing experimental injections. We rejected emergency decrees as law and coercion as consent.”

In Miller, the group filed an amici curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to follow the reasoning of Wisconsin v. Yoder, a landmark case in which the Court barred Wisconsin from forcing Amish children to attend public high schools. The justices found the Amish posed no threat to society and that mandatory public schooling would harm their religious way of life. America’s Frontline Doctors argues the same logic applies to vaccine mandates: the Amish, an insular community that continues to grow despite low vaccination rates, should not lose their religious freedom because of public health.

The organization also submitted an amici curiae brief in Does v. Hochul, supporting the healthcare workers who say New York violated their right to refuse vaccines on religious grounds.

“Our rights come from God and are protected by the Constitution,” Dr. Gold said. “No state has the authority to violate conscience, destroy livelihoods, or force medical compliance. These mandates were unlawful, and they must be judged accordingly.”

Frontline Doctors also filed an amici curiae brief in Mahmoud v. Taylor, where they successfully argued for the ruling the Supreme Court ultimately adopted—and which it is now directing the lower court in Miller to follow.

While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on either case, its actions this week suggest the justices may be preparing to scrutinize vaccine mandates more aggressively—and perhaps reshape the legal landscape for public health requirements across the country.