Background
Anthony and Krystle Perry enrolled their daughter in the Upshur County Virtual School, a public online program in West Virginia. When the school discovered the child was not fully vaccinated, they disenrolled her. The Perrys sought a religious exemption, which is not available under state law, and filed suit claiming the mandatory vaccination requirement violated their First Amendment rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the law was not generally applicable and likely unconstitutional.
The court’s reasoning
The Fourth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not relieve individuals of the obligation to comply with neutral and generally applicable laws, even if they burden religious exercise. The court found that West Virginia’s law is neutral and generally applicable because it applies to all students in the virtual school system and does not provide a mechanism for individualized exemptions based on religious reasons. While the law allows medical exemptions, the court ruled that these are based on objective medical criteria rather than discretionary judgment on the reasons for non-compliance. The court also rejected arguments that the law was underinclusive or that it should be subject to strict scrutiny under Yoder or Mahmoud, distinguishing those cases as involving ideological indoctrination rather than public health measures.
Rights, as important as they are, do not swing free and clear of the larger social compact.
Perry v. Marteney, 24-2132 (4th Cir. 2026)
The dissent
The injunction entered here hardly affects West Virginia’s compelling interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease, as the injunction treats virtual students the same as other West Virginia students not physically attending a school while, at the same time, preserving the Perrys’ free exercise rights.
NIEMEYER
What it means going forward
The decision affirms the constitutionality of state compulsory vaccination laws that lack religious exemptions for students in virtual public school programs. It clarifies that medical exemptions do not undermine the general applicability of such laws and that states retain broad police power to mandate vaccinations to protect public health.