Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal Bureau of Children and Families violated the Massachusetts Constitution when the child was temporarily detained and vaccinated despite religious opposition from parents. When it was likely that refusing public trust in vaccines would make such a conflict more common, it was an important religious freedom ruling.
This case also reflects a different approach to conflicts regarding the free exercise of religion than those reflected in existing US Supreme Court precedents. It may be a sign of what is coming in federal jurisprudence, as the US Supreme Court shows that it can review the ruling of the Landmark’s Free Movement. Employment Department vs. Smith.
Massachusetts incident, Care and protection of Eveinvolved a baby (given a pseudonym Eve) who was temporarily excluded from parents’ detention due to concerns about domestic violence. Parents, who are Rastafarians, said they would avoid Western medicine, including vaccines, as a matter of their religious practice.
The department and Eve (via representative) tried to vaccinate Eve according to the standard vaccination schedule recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A juvenile court judge ruled that Eve’s greatest interests outweighed the religious beliefs of parents against the vaccine, and that vaccination failures “have dependent on the risk of life-threatening preventable diseases that can cause severe illness and death.”
The Massachusetts High Court rejected the reasoning and held that the judge’s order violated Eve’s parents’ rights. The court pointed to the “sacred private interests” of parents, raised children, practiced religion freely rooted in the right to the religious freedom movement and substantial legitimate procedures under both state and federal constitutions. The court explained that temporary loss of custody did not exclude parents’ constitutional rights to religious upbringing of children.
The court’s analysis ultimately turned on the Massachusetts Constitution. Smith decision. Smith We decided that if the law is neutral and generally applicable, it would not have to be justified by the persuasive interests of the state, even if we were to bear religious practices. In contrast, under the Massachusetts Constitution, laws that bear the exercise of religion must overcome strict scrutiny. It must be narrowly adjusted to promote persuasive national interests and pursue those interests.
The Massachusetts Court emphasized that the test applies to “specific, practical, and fact-specific methods.” The court concluded that providing exemption to Eve’s parents would not “substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals,” recognising the persuasive government interest in “the health benefits and risks associated with vaccination are minimal.” The court noted the fact that Massachusetts has granted religious exemptions from mandatory school vaccinations, and that the department is inconsistent with requiring children to be vaccinated in its care (including Eve’s own siblings). He also noted that since Eve is a baby, the incident did not include a child expressing interest against the interests of his parents. (The court did not address how it would control in such cases.)
As vaccines become more and more politicized, these types of conflicts may emerge more regularly. In fact, Massachusetts has recently been one of several state high courts considering disputes over vaccination and parental rights. In March, the North Carolina Supreme Court filed a lawsuit in which a 14-year-old juvenile sued for damages after being administered the Covid-19 vaccine against his and his parents’ wishes. The court ruled that the state constitution protects the “right to physical integrity” and the right to control the development of children. The court further held that constitutional claims in these states were not pre-prepared by federal law, federal public preparation and emergency preparedness (PREP) law. Meanwhile, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in a case that presented a similar argument that the PREP Act took precedence over the state law.
The Massachusetts case is also worth noting that it provides examples of what a different understanding of the freedom movement under the US Constitution actually looks like. Smith.
Massachusetts is not the only state court that illustrates a different path from the state Smith. Last year, the Virginia Supreme Court began with federal precedents, accepting even more strict protections than Massachusetts, and that Virginia must respond to religious beliefs “unless it invades the obvious conduct of peace and good order.” Applying this standard, the Virginia High Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed by teachers who lost their jobs because they refused to work on religious grounds to use student preference pronouns in classrooms. The objections criticized the majority for creating “a fundamental, highly scrutinized standard that actually has the potential to protect people’s objections to policies and laws.”
Jerry Dickinson, dean of the University of Pittsburgh law, writes about “judicial federalization.” This is an example of the US Supreme Court’s consideration of state court interpretations of state constitutions as a source of information to interpret the meaning of the US Constitution. if (and possibly when) Smith If reviewed, examples of these conditions may play an influential role.
Alicia Bannon is director and editor-in-chief of the Judicial Program at Brennan Judicial Center for Justice. State court report.
Suggested Quote: Alicia Bannon, Vaccines, religious freedom, custodysᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 23, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/vaccines-religious-freedom-and-parental-rights