Supreme Court Allows Maine’s Bar on Religious Exemptions to Vaccine Mandate to Stand

Maine remains one of only three states — along with New York and Rhode Island — whose COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health-care workers does not allow for religious exemptions.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C. (photo: Claire Anderson / Unsplash)

Maine remains one of only three states — along with New York and Rhode Island — whose COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health-care workers does not allow for religious exemptions.

The U.S. Supreme Court Friday denied an emergency request to block Maine’s mandate by a group of unvaccinated health-care workers who say the state’s rule violates their religious liberty. The mandate took effect Friday. Also on Friday, a federal appeals court upheld a similar mandate in New York.

Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in denying the request, explaining in a brief statement written by Barrett that the case didn't meet the requirements for the court to intervene.

“When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it considers, among other things, whether the applicant ‘is likely to succeed on the merits,’” Barrett wrote.

“I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case,” Barrett continued. 

“Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take — and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument,“ she stated. ”In my view, this discretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented.” 

Three conservative justices, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito, said they would have granted the request, with Gorsuch authoring the dissenting opinion.

“No one questions that these individuals have served patients on the front line of the COVID-19 pandemic with bravery and grace for 18 months now,” Gorsuch wrote. “Yet, with Maine’s new rule coming into effect, one of the applicants has already lost her job for refusing to betray her faith; another risks the imminent loss of his medical practice.”

Maine previously permitted exemptions for religious or philosophical beliefs, but voters rejected a referendum to reinstate exemptions in the November 2019 election. 

Gorsuch wrote that Maine’s rule creates a “double standard” that tolerates medical “trepidation” about the vaccines but not religious objections. 

“No one questions that protecting patients and health-care workers from contracting COVID-19 is a laudable objective. But Maine does not suggest a worker who is unvaccinated for medical reasons is less likely to spread or contract the virus than someone who is unvaccinated for religious reasons,“ he argued. ”Nor may any government blithely assume those claiming a medical exemption will be more willing to wear protective gear, submit to testing, or take other precautions than someone seeking a religious exemption.”

Gorsuch said the case “presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury,” and he suggested that the plaintiffs “plight is worthy of our attention.” He also argued that civil liberties “face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

U.S. Supreme Court Building

SCOTUS Leak, and Do Boycotts Work? (May 14, 2022)

Many in the U.S. are still reeling over the leaking of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion revealing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protests have erupted. Politicians have dug in entrenched on either side of the abortion policy debate as the Dobbs decision approaches. The Register’s National Correspondent Lauretta Brown joins us today with reports from Washington, DC. And then our Senior Editor Jonathan Liedl helps us wade through the question of boycotts. Should pro-lifers boycott those big companies pouring funds into expanding abortion access? We weigh the situation here.

A girl colors on a sign as adults around her take part in a pro-abortion Mothers Day demonstration outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Sunday in Washington, DC. The building, currently surrounded by a temporary fence, has been the site of abortion-rights and anti-abortion activist demonstrations since the leaked draft of the Court’s potential decision to overturn Roe v. Wade nearly one week ago.

The SCOTUS Leak on Roe v. Wade (May 7)

The leaked draft of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Dobbs case — a decision that could bring an end to the abortion regime of Roe v. Wade — has caused a political and media firestorm. What was behind the unprecedented leak, what is actually written in the opinion, and what might lie ahead for the highest court? EWTN legal analyst Andrea Picciotti-Bayer gives her insights into this blockbuster news. And then, we discuss with Register staff writer Peter Jesserer Smith the challenges the pro-life movement faces in a post-Roe landscape. And we honor the memory of Vicki Thorn, the founder of Project Rachel.

Pope Francis greets a crowd of an estimated 25,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square in Rome for his Regina Caeli address on May 22.

Pope Francis: Ask the Lord for the Gift of Peace

‘The more we feel our hearts are agitated, the more we sense we are nervous, impatient, angry inside, the more we need to ask the Lord for the Spirit of peace,’ he said. He also spoke of the dignity of life: ‘Life is a gift from God!’