Plus: Wyoming considers limiting excessive punishments, explaining levels of scrutiny, and more. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Last week, Massachusetts’s highest court unanimously ruled

[link removed]

that the commonwealth’s Department of Children and Families violated the Massachusetts Constitution when it vaccinated a child temporarily in its custody despite the religious objections of her parents. It was a significant religious freedom ruling at a time when declining

[link removed]

public trust in vaccines is likely to make such conflicts more common.

The case also reflects a different approach to disputes over the free exercise of religion than what’s reflected in existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. And it may be a sign of what’s to come in federal jurisprudence, as the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled that it could revisit its landmark free exercise ruling Employment Division v. Smith

[link removed]

.

The Massachusetts case, Care and Protection of Eve, involved a baby (given the pseudonym Eve) who was temporarily removed from her parents’ custody due to concerns about domestic violence. The parents, who are Rastafarians, stated that they avoid Western medicine, including vaccines, as a matter of their religious practice.

The department and Eve (via a representative) sought to vaccinate Eve according to the standard immunization schedule recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A juvenile court judge ruled that Eve’s best interest outweighed the parents’ religious beliefs opposing vaccines, relying on affidavits from two doctors that a failure to vaccinate “exposes infants and children to an unacceptable level of risk for life-threatening preventable illnesses that can cause severe disease or death.”

The Massachusetts high court rejected this reasoning, ruling that the judge’s order had violated the rights of Eve’s parents. The court pointed to the parents’ “sacred private interests” to raise their children and freely practice their religion, rooted in the right to religious free exercise and substantive due process under both the state and federal constitutions. A temporary loss of custody, the court explained, does not eliminate the parents’ constitutional rights over their child’s religious upbringing.

The court’s analysis ultimately turned on the Massachusetts Constitution, which, it noted, provides more expansive free exercise protections than the U.S. Constitution under the 1990 Smith decision. Smith held that if a law is neutral and generally applicable, it doesn’t need to be justified by a compelling state interest even when it burdens religious practice. By contrast, under the Massachusetts Constitution, any law that burdens the exercise of religion must survive strict scrutiny

[link removed]

: It must advance compelling state interests and be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.

The Massachusetts court emphasized that it applies this test in “a concrete, pragmatic, and fact-specific way.” While recognizing that there was a compelling government interest in the “health benefits associated with, and risks minimized by, vaccination,” the court concluded that providing an exemption to Eve’s parents wouldn’t “substantially hinder the fulfillment of the goal.” The court pointed to the fact that Massachusetts allows for religious exemptions from mandatory school vaccinations, and that the department has been inconsistent in requiring the vaccination of children in its care (including Eve’s own siblings). It also noted that because Eve is a baby, this case did not involve a child expressing interests contrary to those of her parents. (The court did not address how it would rule in such a case.)

With vaccines becoming increasingly politicized, these kinds of conflicts are likely to emerge more regularly. In fact, Massachusetts’s is one of several state high courts to recently consider disputes over vaccinations and parental rights. In March, the North Carolina Supreme Court addressed a case in which a 14-year-old boy sued for damages after he was administered the Covid-19 vaccine against his and his parents’ wishes. The court ruled

[link removed]

that the state constitution protects the “right to bodily integrity” and the right to control a child’s upbringing. The court further determined that these state constitutional claims were not preempted by a federal law, the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides broad immunity to health workers during public health emergencies. The Vermont Supreme Court, meanwhile, ruled

[link removed]

in a case presenting similar claims that the PREP Act did preempt state law.

The Massachusetts case is also notable for offering an example of what a different understanding of free exercise under the U.S. Constitution might look like in practice — at a time when several justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have expressed openness

[link removed]

to revisiting Smith.

Massachusetts isn’t the only state high court to chart a different path than Smith. Last year, the Virginia Supreme Court also departed from federal precedent and embraced even more stringent protections than Massachusetts, ruling

[link removed]

that Virginia must accommodate religious beliefs unless they “break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” Applying this standard, the Virginia high court allowed a lawsuit to go forward by a teacher who had lost his job for refusing on religious grounds to use a student’s preferred pronouns in the classroom. The dissent criticized the majority for creating “a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law.”

Jerry Dickinson, dean of University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has written

[link removed]

about “judicial federalization” — instances wherein the U.S. Supreme Court has looked to state courts’ interpretation of state constitutions as a source for interpreting the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. If (and most likely when) Smith is revisited, these state examples may well play an influential role.





Democracy’s Fate Depends on Both State and Federal Courts

In a democracy under attack, the United States’ federalist system is vital, writes the American Civil Liberties Union’s Matthew Segal, who examines litigation over a North Carolina Supreme Court seat to explain why both state and federal courts are necessary to protect voters. Read more

[link removed]

State Courthouses in the ICE Age

Last month’s arrest of a state judge in Wisconsin is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to pressure state and local officials into enforcing federal immigration laws, writes Stanford Law professor Jennifer M. Chacón. Read more

[link removed]

Wyoming Supreme Court Signals Openness to Limiting Excessive Punishments

At oral arguments over the constitutionality of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for young adults, several Wyoming justices suggested that the right to be free from “cruel or unusual” punishments is fundamental, writes the State Law Research Initiative’s Kyle C. Barry. Read more

[link removed]

State Constitutional Challenges to Laws Defining Sex

While a presidential executive order defined sex as binary, a Montana court decision shows how state privacy and antidiscrimination protections may constrain state lawmakers looking to impose a similar standard, writes Constance Van Kley of the University of Montana’s law school. Read more

[link removed]

Former Hawaii Justice Masaji Marumoto’s Legacy

In celebration of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander heritage month, State Court Report’s production coordinator Zoe Merriman and Brennan Center counsel Chihiro Isozaki take a look at the trailblazing career of Masaji Marumoto, the first Asian American to sit on a state or territorial high court of the United States. Read more

[link removed]

Levels of Scrutiny Applied by State Courts, Explained

In assessing the constitutionality of laws, courts usually apply one of several tests that provide for different levels of scrutiny of the challenged law. NYU law student Morgan Munroe and State Court Report’s Sarah Kessler distill the most common tests applied by state courts. Read more

[link removed]

The Ohio Constitution: Its History and Its Future

The Ohio Constitution is one of the country’s oldest, but 2023 was the most consequential year for the governing document in more than a century, writes Steven Steinglass, dean emeritus at Cleveland State University College of Law. The essay is part of our 50-state series

[link removed]

about the nation’s constitutions. Read more

[link removed]





You May Have Missed

Two original actions were filed

[link removed]

in the Wisconsin Supreme Court challenging the state’s congressional district map, one claiming improper partisan gerrymandering and the other that the population varies too much among districts. State Court Report previously wrote

[link removed]

about district lines being part of the high stakes of Wisconsin judicial elections.

A Kansas nonprofit filed

[link removed]

a state constitutional challenge to a law that will repeal the grace period for counting ballots postmarked before Election Day but that don’t arrive until after 7 p.m. on election night. Central to the claims is a 2024 Kansas Supreme Court ruling, covered

[link removed]

by State Court Report, that voting is not a fundamental right under the state constitution but that it is a “political right” still subject to constitutional protections.

Two lawsuits

[link removed]

challenge new Montana voting restrictions on college student registration and Election Day registration, among other limitations. Both complaints rely on a 2024 Montana Supreme Court decision that offers a more protective test for the right to vote than the standard federal analysis. State Court Report previously explained

[link removed]

the new test.





Notable Cases

Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns

[link removed]

, Washington Supreme Court

Upheld a state ban on selling or manufacturing large-capacity magazines, finding that they are not “arms” within the scope of the state or federal constitutions’ right to bear arms. State Court Report previewed

[link removed]

the case. // Washington State Standard

[link removed]

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. South Carolina

[link removed]

, South Carolina Supreme Court

Held unanimously that a “fetal heartbeat” triggering the state abortion ban occurs when electrical impulses are detectable as a sound and a medical professional observes them as steady and rhythmic fetal heart contractions. The court acknowledged that this usually happens after about six weeks of pregnancy. // The Guardian

[link removed]

J.F. v. St. Vincent Hospital

[link removed]

, Indiana Supreme Court

Established a new approach to mootness for the state constitutional and statutory right to appeal court-ordered temporary involuntary commitments confining people to mental health facilities, saying the expiration of such an order generally will not bar an appeal. // The Indiana Lawyer

[link removed]

State v. Davieontray Breax

[link removed]

, Louisiana Supreme Court

Held that the “plain text” of the state constitution and decades of precedent bar prosecutors from joining capital charges with other felony charges in one indictment. Louisiana is the only state with this requirement. // News 15

[link removed]

You can find briefs and opinions from notable state constitutional lawsuits in our State Case Database

[link removed]

.







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]



Did you get this message forwarded from a friend? Sign up here

[link removed]

.

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]