How Michigan Schools Unlawfully Deny Enrollment of Unvaccinated Children
Get my newsletters and download my FREE myth-busting book A Brief History of Palestine:
Throughout the state of Michigan, parents are being told by school administrators that if they wish to enroll a child who is not vaccinated according to CDC’s schedule, they are required to go through a local health department to attend an “education” session and obtain a certified “Immunization Waiver Form”.
The ostensibly mandatory “education”, however, is not aimed at empowering parents to make an informed choice. Instead, the transparent aim is to intimidate and humiliate dissenting parents into compliance. This is evident by the fact that the “education” session tells parents about the supposed benefits but not the risks of vaccination. It also tries to scare parents about the risks of the target disease but not the benefits of acquiring superior natural immunity.
The waiver form that parents are told to sign requires them to acknowledge that they are placing their own child and others at risk. In essence, it prejudicially requires parents to admit to making an irresponsible choice. Parents who choose to fully vaccinate their children, by contrast, are not required to sign a form acknowledging the risks of vaccination or the opportunity cost of natural immunity.
The “education” session and “waiver” requirement, therefore, are absolutely prejudicial to parents’ right to make their own informed choices about matters related to their own children’s health.
Bureaucrats in state capitals or Washington, DC, have none of the knowledge required to be able to conduct a meaningful risk-benefit analysis on behalf of any individuals.
The good news for Michigan parents is that the ostensible “education” session and “waiver” form admission of irresponsibility are not actual requirements of Michigan law.
In fact, under the law, parents may exempt their child from the vaccination requirements by presenting a written exemption statement expressing a religious or other objection.
The belief that a “waiver” must be obtained from the health department is not derived from Michigan law but from an administrative rule from the state’s department of health and human services (MDHHS).
MDHHS, of course, is an executive agency with no lawmaking authority. It cannot impose requirements on parents beyond those contained in statutory law. Nor does it have authority to effectively deputize schools to enforce its extra-statutory requirements.
Nevertheless, parents throughout the state are being told that their written exemption statements cannot be accepted and that they must go through the health department to obtain a “proper” exemption.
School administrators are thus brazenly violating Michigan law and imposing extra-legal and discriminatory requirements on parents for their children to receive a public education.
My own family has been harmed by this discriminatory and unlawful policy implemented by schools throughout the state. It is thanks to the fantastic organization Michigan for Vaccine Choice (MVC) that I first learned that the legal requirement for school admission is satisfied by submitting our own written statement expressing our religious or other objection to vaccination.
My wife and I have always homeschooled, but after deciding that it would be best for our twelve-year-old son to attend a public middle school in the fall, we were faced with an unlawful denial of our written exemption statement.
I therefore teamed up with MVC to coordinate efforts and organize to fight this systematic violation of Michigan law by the MDHHS and public school system.
To learn more about what you can do to stand up for your own rights and help others, see MVC’s notice, “Parents! Now is the Time to Assert Your Right to Exemption for Vaccination!”
To learn more about bills that have been introduced to protect against this type of discrimination, see “Michigan Legislators Introduce Bills to Protect Against Discrimination”.
Also see “Michigan for Vaccine Choice 2025 Legislative Day”, featuring a presentation by Dr. Remington Nevin, the medical director for the St. Clair County Health Department, explaining how the MDHHS administrative rule is being unlawfully used to force a “humiliation ritual” on parents who make their own informed choices in the best interests of their own children’s health.
“How can parents be expected to trust local health officials,” Dr. Nevin stated, “to interpret complex medical and scientific information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines, how are parents to trust local health departments to do that if they can’t even read a simple regulation correctly?”
Michigan for Vaccine Choice also recently featured my own family’s story of having been expelled by a pediatric practice for declining vaccinations. I wrote a scathing response letter calling out the pediatricians in that practice for their arrogance, condescension, ignorance, and willingness to participate in the systematic violation of the right to informed consent.
After our son was unlawfully denied school enrollment, in a coordinated effort with MVC to seek legal accountability, I wrote a memorandum explaining our situation and summarizing how schools are violating the law by imposing extra-legal requirements on parents.
If you are a parent in Michigan or other concerned citizen who would like to get involved, please contact me here, and also consider joining MVC and supporting their worthy mission here.
Following is the text of a memorandum I wrote to help in the effort. It outlines the legal issues to illuminate how schools are acting as deputized agents of the executive branch of Michigan government to unlawfully impose extra-statutory requirements on parents with the aim of propagandizing, intimidating, and humiliating them into submission.
Legal Memorandum: Unlawful Denial of School Enrollment Based on Extra-Statutory Administrative Policy
Executive Summary
This memorandum outlines the legal and constitutional violations committed by Petoskey Middle School in denying public school enrollment to a student whose parent submitted a lawful vaccine exemption statement in accordance with the Michigan Public Health Code. The school’s justification rests on a misinterpretation of an administrative rule promulgated by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), which does not—and cannot—impose additional obligations on parents beyond what is required by statute.
The analysis demonstrates that:
- Michigan law grants parents the right to exempt their children from vaccination requirements through a written statement submitted directly to the school;
- The MDHHS administrative rule has been misread by the school to impose further requirements that lack legal basis;
- The school’s reasoning relies on circular logic and fails to identify any statute requiring parental attendance at an “education session” or use of a certified “waiver” form;
- The school’s refusal to accept a lawful exemption violates the Public Health Code, improperly delegates enforcement power to school administrators, and constitutes unlawful discrimination;
- The policy as implemented by schools may also violate federal law under FERPA by compelling unauthorized disclosure of student information to local health departments.
This is not an isolated error but part of a broader pattern of systemic overreach affecting families statewide. Legal redress is necessary to ensure that executive agencies and local schools do not unlawfully infringe upon statutory rights or condition public education on compliance with invalid administrative demands.
I. Introduction
Petoskey Middle School is unlawfully attempting to deny my son admission despite our full compliance with the statutory requirements for school enrollment under Michigan law. In doing so, the school is denying my son his right to a public education and engaging in discriminatory conduct without lawful justification.
Moreover, my family’s experience is not an isolated case. Families throughout the state are being coerced, discriminated against, and unlawfully denied their right to enroll their children in a public school as a result of an administrative rule issued by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS).
This injustice demands a legal remedy through the courts.
My family lives within the Petoskey school district. Our son, now twelve years old, has always been homeschooled, but we have decided that it would be in his best interest to attend Petoskey Middle School. I completed the online enrollment form at the end of April.
After our application was approved, although I had not provided any information about our son’s vaccination status, I received an email from the school district registrar stating that we would need to obtain an “immunization waiver” from the local health department.
I responded by noting that we are familiar with the requirements of Michigan law and asked how I could submit our documentation. She insisted we had to go through the health department to obtain a “waiver” that would then be digitally shared with the school to complete the enrollment process.
I informed her that the Michigan Public Health Code does not require parents to go through the health department but rather allows them to provide either vaccination records or an exemption statement directly to the school administrator.
Since the registrar refused to accept our exemption statement by email, I visited the school district’s administrative office to hand deliver it, along with a cover letter explaining the law, printouts of the relevant statutes, three legal analyses from attorneys, and a memorandum from the medical director of the St. Clair County Health Department. When I attempted to hand over the documents, the registrar refused to accept them on the grounds that she had not yet discussed the matter with the superintendent. I offered to give the documents directly to the superintendent, but she said he did not have time to meet with me. I therefore requested to schedule an appointment, which she arranged.
I met with the superintendent on May 8. After explaining how parents are not required under Michigan law to obtain a “waiver” from the health department, I handed him our documentation. He stated that he would need to review the matter with legal counsel. I asked him to sign a document acknowledging receipt of our written exemption statement, which he did.
On May 14, the superintendent issued a letter in which he failed to address the information I had provided and simply re-asserted that we were required to obtain a “waiver” from the health department.
In response, I sent a letter dated May 26 via certified mail with return receipt, reiterating the relevant points of law and formally notifying the district that our son would be attending school in the fall, as we had fulfilled the statutory requirements for school enrollment.
The superintendent’s reply, dated June 2, again ignored the legal basis of our exemption and repeated the same erroneous assertion that we are required to obtain a “waiver” from the health department under Michigan law.
As I explained to the superintendent, this policy is ultra vires: MDHHS has no legal authority to impose such requirements on parents, and the use of its administrative rule by school districts to deny children a public education is both unlawful and discriminatory.
This brief outlines the statutory requirements for school admission, the scope and limits of MDHHS’s administrative authority, and the legal error in the district’s argument that the Public Health Code requires schools to enforce rules that impose conditions on parents not found in the statute itself. In addition to the improper delegation of enforcement power to public schools and the lack of statutory basis for rejecting a lawful exemption, the MDHHS administrative rule effectively seeks to compel schools throughout the state to violate student privacy rights protected under FERPA—jeopardizing federal funding for both individual schools and the state due to noncompliance with federal student privacy law.
II. Statutory Requirements for School Admission in Michigan
The Revised School Code Act 451 of 1976 (MCL 380.1177) states that to enroll a child in school, it is sufficient to submit to the school “A statement signed by a parent or guardian to the effect that the child has not been immunized because of religious or other objection to immunization.”[1]
Section 9208 of the Michigan Public Health Code (MCL 333.9208[1]), similarly recognizes the right of parents to exempt their child from vaccination requirements by submitting a written statement of exemption in lieu of a certificate of vaccination:
A parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis applying to have a child registered for the first time in a school in this state . . . shall present to school officials, at the time of registration or not later than the first day of school, a certificate of immunization or statement of exemption under section 9215.[2]
Section 9215 (MCL 333.9215[1]) specifies the only requirements for the exemption statement:
A child is exempt from this part if a parent . . . of the child presents a written statement to the administrator of the child’s school . . . to the effect that the requirements of this part cannot be met because of religious convictions or other objection to immunization.[3]
Thus, under sections 9208 and 9215, the requirements of Michigan law for school admission are fully satisfied when a parent submits a written statement directly to the school administrator expressing a religious or other objection to vaccination.
This statutory exemption is self-executing. The law imposes no further conditions on the parents. There is no requirement in the statute that a parent must attend any “education” session or obtain a certified “waiver” from the local health department.
Likewise, there is no provision in the law granting a school the authority to reject a parent’s written exemption submitted in accordance with sections 9208 and 9215 of the Public Health Code.[4]
Consequently, it is both discriminatory and contrary to the plain language of Michigan law for school administrators to deny a child a public education by rejecting an exemption statement lawfully submitted by the parents.
III. MDHHS Administrative Rules Cannot Override Rights Protected by Statute
The school’s claim that we are required to obtain a certified “waiver” from the health department does not derive from statute. Instead, it rests on in improper interpretation of MDHHS Administrative Rule 325.176(12), which states the following:
When presented with a medical exemption, religious or other exemption, the administrator of a child’s school or operator of a child’s group program shall recognize the exemption status of the child. Each nonmedical exemption filed at the child’s school or group program of a child entering a program after December 31, 2014 shall be certified by the local health department that the individual received education on the risks of not receiving the vaccines being waived and the benefits of vaccination to the individual and the community. All waivers shall be submitted using the waiver form prescribed by the department.[5]
Despite repeated attempts to correct the school’s misunderstanding of Michigan law, the school administrator has persisted in ignoring the first sentence of this rule requiring the school to “recognize the exemption status of the child” upon submission of the written exemption statement.
Among the facts ignored by the school is that MDHHS is an executive agency without legislative authority. It cannot impose requirements on parents beyond those enacted by the Michigan Legislature. Nor can it deputize schools to enforce extralegal mandates.
As the Michigan Supreme Court held in In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Michigan, 482 Mich 90, 92, 97–98, 108 (2008),
[I]n accordance with longstanding Michigan precedent and basic separation of powers principles, we hold and reaffirm that an agency’s interpretation of a statute is entitled to “respectful consideration,” but the courts may not abdicate their judicial responsibility to interpret statutes by giving unfettered deference to an agency’s interpretation. Courts must respect legislative decisions and interpret statutes according to their plain language. . . .While administrative agencies have what have been described as “quasi-legislative” powers, such as rulemaking authority, these agencies cannot exercise legislative power by creating law or changing the laws enacted by the Legislature. . . . The majority holds that a Michigan agency’s interpretation of a statute that is within its area of expertise is not binding on the courts. Also, an agency interpretation cannot conflict with the plain meaning of the statute.[6]
The scope of MDHHS’s rulemaking authority under Part 92 of the Public Health Code is defined in section 9227 (MCL 333.9227), which directs the department to promulgate rules to “implement this part”—including technical matters such as vaccination schedules, dose timing, and physician reporting protocols. While this rulemaking provision includes a “not limited to” clause, that language cannot be construed as granting MDHHS carte blanche to functionally rewrite the statute.
Administrative rules can only aim to implement legislative directives, not expand on or replace statutory requirements for public school attendance.[7] The Public Health Code does not authorize MDHHS to impose further procedural conditions on the parental exercise of the statutory exemption, and to the extent that Rule 325.176(12) attempts to do so, it is illegal, null, and void.
IV. The School District’s Circular Reasoning
To justify the unlawful and discriminatory rejection of our written exemption statement, the school administrator cited MCL 333.9229, which states,
A person who violates this part or a rule promulgated under this part is guilty of a misdemeanor.
The district superintendent claims that this statute requires him to reject our written exemption statement, which is directly contradicted by the plain language of both the Public Health Code and the MDHHS administrative rule. The school’s interpretation that Section 9229 effectively requires parents to obtain “proper forms” through the health department is legally unsustainable.
The phrase “this part” refers to Part 92 of the Public Health Code, which pertains to vaccinations. A person may only be guilty of a misdemeanor if they violate a valid provision of the statute or a lawful administrative rule. That standard is not met here.
The district’s argument amounts to circular reasoning—specifically, the petitio principii fallacy, or begging the question. The school assumes the very proposition it must prove: that parents are required by law to attend an “education” session and obtain a certified “waiver” from the health department. Not only has the school failed to cite any statute imposing such a requirement, but when presented with a lawful exemption statement submitted in accordance with the plain language of the Public Health Code, the school rejected it on the grounds that it did not comply with an MDHHS administrative rule. When informed that MDHHS lacks legal authority to impose additional requirements on parents, the school ignored this fact and merely reasserted its original false premise.
This circular reasoning presumes the very point in dispute: that the school’s interpretation of the statute and the administrative rule is correct. But if the intent of the administrative rule is to impose requirements on parents to attend an “education” session and obtain a certified “waiver” form, then the rule is illegal, null, and void. Conversely, if the rule is lawful, then it cannot be interpreted as imposing such extra-statutory obligations on parents. These are logical truisms.
Thus, a school does not violate the law by admitting a student whose parent has submitted a lawful exemption statement in accordance with Sections 9208 and 9215 of the Public Health Code. On the contrary, what plainly violates the law is denying admission to a student despite the parent’s fulfillment of that statutory requirement.
V. The Misinterpretation of the MDHHS Administrative Rule
The specious nature of the school administrator’s argument is further illuminated by examining the full text of the cited rule, R 325.176(12), the first part of which states:
When presented with a medical exemption, religious or other exemption, the administrator of a child’s school or operator of a child’s group program shall recognize the exemption status of the child.
This clause directly contradicts the superintendent’s claim that the rule requires the school to reject our written exemption statement. Notably, the school’s rejection letters omitted this clause when quoting the rule—underscoring that its misreading depends on a willful disregard for the rule’s opening directive.
The plain meaning of this clause—and the only interpretation consistent with both the rule and statute—is that school administrators are required to recognize a child’s exemption status once the parent presents a written exemption statement in accordance with MCL 333.9215.
Instead of addressing this mandate, the school selectively quotes only the subsequent provisions:
Each nonmedical exemption filed at the child’s school . . . shall be certified by the local health department that the individual received education on the risks of not receiving the vaccines being waived and the benefits of vaccination to the individual and the community. All waivers shall be submitted using the waiver form prescribed by the department.
These provisions must be read in conjunction with, not in contradiction to, the prior directive requiring recognition of the exemption.
The certification language, at most, imposes an internal procedural duty on the department or schools to document that an “education” session has been offered or provided. It does not impose a legal obligation on the parent to attend one as a prerequisite to lawful exemption.
Likewise, the “waiver form” requirement pertains only to administrative recordkeeping, not to the validity of the parent’s exemption statement. That interpretation is confirmed by Dr. Remington Nevin, Medical Director of the St. Clair County Health Department, in an internal memorandum dated April 15, 2025, which explains:
Both the Public Health Code and the Revised School Code therefore establish that a parent secures an absolute and permanent exemption of their child from the requirements of mandatory immunization through the sole act of presenting an appropriate written statement to their child’s school.
Dr. Nevin clarifies that, prior to the introduction of R 325.176(12) in 2014, “it was already understood” that health departments—not parents—processed waivers after a parent exercised their statutory right to exemption:
Parents did not request ‘waivers’, nor was the active participation of a parent necessary for this purely administrative function.
He further emphasizes that the very misinterpretation adopted by the Petoskey school district “is not supported by the actual text of the amendment, nor is it consistent with the administrative rule-making history,” and that the provisions at issue pertain exclusively to administrative actions, “without the further active participation of the parent.”[8]
Thus, the school’s legal position fails on multiple grounds:
- It falsely assumes that MDHHS has authority to impose requirements on parents additional to those contained in the statute.
- It falsely claims that the administrative rule mandates schools to reject exemption statements unless certified through the health department.
- It falsely asserts that schools are required by law to enforce administrative rules that impose requirements not found in the statute.
In short, the school’s justification for rejecting our written
exemption statement—and thereby denying our son a public education—is
legally unsupportable and constitutes a discriminatory policy that
violates our rights under Michigan law.
VI. FERPA Violations Resulting from MDHHS Policy Enforcement
In addition to being unlawfully interpreted to impose extra-statutory conditions on parents, the MDHHS administrative rule may result in violations of federal law protecting student privacy.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, prohibits the disclosure of personally identifiable information from student education records without prior written consent, except under limited and specifically enumerated exceptions.[9]
Yet, the MDHHS administrative rule effectively requires schools to transmit student information to local health departments—regardless of whether parents have consented. This creates a systemic risk of FERPA violations, which may result in the loss of federal education funding for the individual school and, potentially, for the state.[10]
As explained by Dr. Nevin:
In summary, Michigan state law establishes that a parent secures an absolute and permanent exemption of their child from the requirements of mandatory immunization through the sole act of presenting an appropriate written statement to their child’s school, and that no further active participation of the parent is required to perfect this exemption. Michigan regulations further require that, upon the school’s receipt of such a perfected exemption, a local public health department is to subsequently provide the parent a certain passive education, without the further active participation of the parent, and that upon certification that this education has been passively provided, the local health department is to complete a “waiver” as a purely internal administrative function. However, federal law establishes that the written statement constituting the perfected exemption becomes a confidential educational record subject to the FERPA, and not subject to routine disclosures, including to local health departments.[11]
VIII. Conclusion
The denial of public school enrollment based on a parent’s noncompliance with an improperly applied administrative rule constitutes an unlawful infringement on rights protected under Michigan statute and federal privacy law. School officials have neither the authority to reject a lawful exemption nor the authority to act as de facto enforcement agents for executive agencies.
This is not an isolated incident—it represents a systemic pattern of institutionalized discrimination that is adversely impacting families across the state. We respectfully urge legal counsel to recognize the substantial legal and constitutional issues raised herein and to assist in seeking redress for the discriminatory and unlawful barriers that the Petoskey school district has placed in the way of our family’s exercise of our son’s right to a public education.
[1] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-451-of-1976.pdf
[2] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-333-9208
[3] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-333-9215
[4] Paul G. Connors, Child Immunization Exemption, Memorandum, Michigan Legislative Services Bureau, Legal Research Division Memorandum to Rep. Leon Drolet (June 11, 2003), https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/36330e_4a69c584919a495d88151dc02638c32c.pdf
[5] https://dtmb.state.mi.us/ORRDocs/AdminCode/1472_2014-073CH_AdminCode.pdf
[6] https://www.courts.michigan.gov/c/courts/coa/case/264862
[7] Alan G. Phillips, J.D., Michigan Vaccine Exemption Procedure Legal Analysis (March 17, 2015), https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/49f017_2c0ab71d974846c8a9f15a32925fe396.pdf
Michael A. Ross, FERPA Privacy Rights and Access to Student Immunization and Exemption Records, Memorandum to the Michigan for Vaccine Choice Board of Directors from Ogne, Alberts & Stuart, P.C. (October 20, 2017), https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/36330e_93d6615ee3824039923a1b31d3949007.pdf?dn=MVC+FERP
[8] Remington Nevin, MD, MPH, DrPH, Medical Director, St. Clair County Health Department, Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Immunization Exemptions, Memorandum for Advisory Board of Health and Elizabeth King, St. Clair County Health Department (April 15, 2025), https://www.michiganvaccinechoice.org/single-post/mdhhs-promulgated-rule-has-led-to-widespread-misinterpretation-of-laws-surrounding-exemption-for-vac
[9] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1232g
United States Department of Education, Student Privacy Policy Office, A Parent Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (July 9, 2021), https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/A%20parent%20guide%20to%20ferpa_508.pdf
[10] Ross, FERPA Privacy Rights, supra.
[11] Nevin, Memorandum on Immunization Exemptions, supra.
Exposing Lies. Revealing Truth. Empowering Action.
Get the critical analysis and deep insights you won't find in the mainstream media—delivered straight to your inbox.
About Jeremy R. Hammond
I am an independent journalist dedicated to exposing state propaganda designed to manufacture consent for criminal government policies. I provide deeply researched analyses on critical issues including US foreign policy, the economy, and health freedom.
I am a Research Fellow at The Libertarian Institute and author. My books include Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and The War on Informed Consent.
No comments:
Post a Comment