The Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit brought by New York health care workers who were opposed to the state’s immunization mandate for religious reasons.
Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas all said that the court should have heard the case.
The requirement was initially imposed in August to stop the spread of the latest coronavirus variant. However, exceptions were allowed based on religious objections or medical reasons. However, the exemption for religious reasons was later removed.
Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Roman Catholic Catholic, stated that she was unaware of any “sanctioned religion objection from any organised religion” and that religious leaders including the pope were encouraging people to get vaccines.
Sixteen health care workers filed suit, claiming they had religious objections to the use of fetal cell line embryos in the development, testing, or production Covid vaccines. The mandate allowed people who had not been vaccinated to work as usual, which they claimed violated their religious freedom.
Lawyers for the state claimed that the Covid mandate was similar in nature to long-standing rules that require health care workers to get vaccinated against rubella and measles. These requirements also allow for exemptions, but only for medical reasons. The state stated that laboratory-grown stem cells were used for testing the rubella vaccine. They are derived from cells taken from a fetus almost 50 years ago.
They stated in written submissions that “the presence of a single, restricted medical exemption to a vaccination requirement does not require a State to provide a blanket religion-free exemption from vaccination.”
Thomas wrote for the three dissidents, stating that there is still confusion about a mandate which does not provide a religious exemption like New York’s. Thomas said that the court should have heard the case immediately to avoid similar confusion in the future.
The Supreme Court refused to temporarily block the vaccine requirement in this case. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch stated then that the court should grant the request to suspend the mandate.