Flip-Flopping Religious Exemptions for West Virginia School Children
- by Carolyn Hendler, JD
- Published
- Conscience
West Virginia government officials have been at war over religious exemptions to vaccine mandates for school-aged children. In November 2025, a district court issued a permanent injunction against a vaccine mandate that refused to allow for religious exemptions for school-aged children. Raleigh County Circuit Court Judge Michael Froble found that it was a violation of the Equal Protection for Religion Act (EPRA) to deny parents the right to apply for a religious exemption to vaccination. The court ruling would allow children who cannot receive vaccines for religious reasons to be able to attend public school and participate in extracurricular sports.1 2
Until recently, West Virginia was among the few states that only allowed for medical exemptions to school vaccine mandates. The other states that refuse all but medical exemptions are New York, California, and Connecticut.3 However, in January, Governor Patrick Morrisey issued Executive Order 7-25 permitting religious exemptions to vaccination in the state.4 The Executive Order found that the denial of all religious exemptions to vaccine mandates to attend school was a violation of the EPRA and directed the State Health Department to set forth a religious exemption process.5
Board Of Education Votes To Defy Executive Order
In June, the Board of Education defied that executive order and voted to order public schools to ignore the executive order.6 Raleigh County Superintendent refused to accept Health Department issued religious exemptions and the students who were issued such exemptions were denied entry into school. 7
District Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against School Board
Two mothers whose children were denied entry into school sued the Board of Education and the Department of Health requesting injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against West Virginia’s Compulsory Vaccination law. The district court initially granted a preliminary injunction allowing the plaintiff’s children to attend school and then issued a permanent injunction after a multi-day evidentiary hearing which included testimony from state officials, public health experts, the state Board of education among other witnesses.8
The court concluded that the EPRA did not make a distinction between religious and philosophical objections and that self-attested religious belief statements were adequate for vaccine exemptions.9
One Percent Unvaccinated Students Would Not Affect Herd Immunity
The 570 religious exemptions, less than one percent of the statewide student population, to the vaccine mandate would not jeopardize herd immunity nor jeopardize public health according to the court. The court decided that legislative inaction did not determine EPRA’s applicability and furthermore, legislative intent is merely a factor in determining the applicability of the EPRA.10
The court determined that the plaintiffs met the burden under the EPRA and that the refusal to accept any religious exemption to the mandate substantially burdened plaintiffs free exercise of religion by requiring them to choose between their religious beliefs and a public education.11
State Vaccines laws Inconsistent and Arbitrary
The court pointed out certain inconsistencies surrounding vaccine laws in the state, that viruses and bacteria such as those covered in the compulsory vaccination laws are incapable of distinguishing between a school building and the general community, an adult and a child, yet vaccines are not mandated for extracurricular activities or adults in a school setting. Home-schooled children and children who attend learning pods or micro-schools are not required to receive all of the vaccinations required for public schools. The court added that compulsory vaccination laws may be arbitrary in that they do not cover COVID-19 shots or the annual flu shot.12
When issuing a permanent injunction, West Virginia courts uses a test that balances the hardships considering (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff should the injunction not be issues; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant should the injunction be issued; (3) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and (4) public interest. The EPRA which went into effect in 2023, prevents government action that “[s]ubstantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion unless applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion in a particular situation s essential to further a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”13
EPRA Demands Strict Scrutiny Analysis
The court found that the EPRA unambiguously sets forth that the government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without meeting the standard of strict scrutiny. Courts evaluate U.S. Constitutional claims of substantive due process and equal protection violations using one of three forms of review; the rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny. The strict scrutiny analysis is the highest standard of review and requires a presumption of unconstitutionality. The government has the burden of persuasion to show evidence that its actions were constitutional. The government is required to demonstrate that its actions were narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest and that they used the least restrictive means to further that state interest.14
The court, looking at the totality of the record, concluded that the denial of religious exemptions is a clear violation of the EPRA.15
Court’s Ruling Applies Across Entire State
The court further denied the Defendants argument that the ruling can’t be applied across the state as the court lacks authority outside their jurisdiction because the EPRA expressly authorizes courts to grant injunctive relief “against the state or its political subdivisions.” The court further found that the State Board of Education denied all religious exemptions without inquiring into the sincerity of the beliefs. Due to the statewide policy of denying all religious exemptions without further inquiry, the court had the authority to issue a statewide jurisdiction.16
The court also determined that it had the authority to set the putative class which in this case are those students who were denied entry to public school due to their religious beliefs about vaccination. Accordingly, the court’s ruling applies across the state, and to the entire class of students seeking a religious exemption to vaccine mandates.17
Court Finds There are Less Restrictive Means to Keep Kids Safe
The court concluded that the government fails the least restrictive means test due to the fact that 45 other states allow for a religious exemption and use other less restrictive means to keep students safe such as quarantine in the event of an outbreak and temporary exclusion from school.18
Finally, the court determined that there is a public interest in ensuring compliance with EPRA.19
WV Supreme Court Temporarily Suspends Ruling
Despite the district court’s comprehensive 74-page ruling, the Supreme Court of West Virginia temporarily suspended the ruling. The State Board of Education reinstated the compulsory vaccine law to exclude students who can’t get vaccinations due to religious reasons until further guidance from the court.20
The press secretary to Governor Morrisey declared:
Whether we prevail in the courts or prevail with the Legislature, West Virginia will ultimately join the other 45 states that protect and defend religious liberty and will no longer be such an outlier on vaccine policy.21
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:
