A group of Republican lawmakers have formally asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch investigations into four states whose laws do not allow religious exemptions from school-based vaccine mandates, claiming those policies infringe on constitutional religious freedoms.
In a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, the lawmakers asked the DOJ to examine policies in New York, California, Maine, and Connecticut, all of which have eliminated religious exemptions for “required” childhood vaccinations. The members of Congress contend that the absence of any religious accommodation forces families to choose between adhering to their beliefs and accessing public education, a choice they argue the Constitution does not permit.
The letter frames the issue as one of unequal treatment, asserting that states allowing medical exemptions while categorically denying religious ones are engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Furthermore, religious objections are being singled out for disfavored treatment, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that sincerely held religious beliefs are entitled to protection under the Free Exercise Clause.
The members also point to recent federal court activity that supports the need for DOJ involvement, including ongoing litigation challenging state vaccine mandates and argue that federal enforcement authorities should take an active role in assessing whether state policies comply with constitutional requirements. In particular, they raise concerns about actions by state officials that they say have gone beyond enforcing vaccination laws and have instead targeted parents and physicians who assert or support religious objections.
Namely, two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions provide clear guidance on First Amendment rights. In a June 2025 Supreme Court decision, Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court sided with parents who wanted to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed elementary school books due to their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court in Miller v. McDonald, vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. This case involved members of an Amish community who challenged New York’s vaccine mandate. The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the Free Exercise Clause, requiring public schools to provide opt-out mechanisms for parents who object to certain requirements on religious grounds.
While public health officials in the affected states have defended the elimination of non-medical exemptions as necessary to maintain high vaccination rates and prevent outbreaks of contagious diseases, critics argue that those goals do not override constitutional limits. The lawmakers maintain that public health objectives can be pursued without extinguishing religious liberty altogether, and that less restrictive alternatives are available.
The letter urges the DOJ to use its civil rights authority to investigate whether the states’ policies unlawfully interfere with religious exercise and to consider intervention where appropriate. Such action would be consistent with the federal government’s obligation to protect constitutional rights, particularly when state policies affect children’s access to education.
Religious freedom is the “cornerstone of our Republic,” Rep. Greg Steube said in a statement. “It is inexcusable that New York, California, Maine, and Connecticut refuse to provide people of faith with a religious exemption from their vaccine mandates. This is not only a direct violation of the Free Exercise Clause, but it is also a grave assault on civil liberties.”
“Your constitutional rights should never take a backseat to a vaccine mandate,” he added. “That is why I am requesting Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon launch formal investigations of all states that continue to violate the constitutional rights of the American people via coercion and infringement on their religious beliefs.”
The DOJ has not publicly responded to the request. If the DOJ were to open investigations, it would mark a significant change in the long-running national debate over vaccine mandates, religious exemptions, and the role of federal enforcement in disputes that have largely been left to the states.
