In a landmark decision that has sparked widespread discussions about the intersection of public health policies and constitutional rights, a federal court has declared Colorado University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate unconstitutional.
In a 55-page ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision and held the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine’s policies prohibiting religious exemptions to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate were “motivated by religious animus” and unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses.
The mandate, enacted on on Sept. 1, 2021, “clearly violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted by our precedents,” the court said in its May 7 ruling. Although the mandate was later updated, the newer version was also found to violate clearly established constitutional rights.
In addition to finding religious discrimination, the Court found the University of Anschutz Medical Campus granted “exemptions for some religions, but not others, because of differences in their religious doctrines” and granted “secular exemptions on more favorable terms than religious exemptions,” all of which was unlawful.
“The University of Colorado ran roughshod overstaff and students of faith during COVID, and the Court of Appeals has now declared plainly what we’ve fought to establish for almost three years: the University acted with ‘religious animus’ and flagrantly violated the fundamental religious liberties of these brave healthcare providers and students,” Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation wrote in a statement.
These medical providers were hailed as heroes, as they served bravely on the front lines through the worst of the pandemic, but when their religious principles conflicted with the beliefs of University of Colorado bureaucrats, these heroes were callously tossed aside.”
Breen explained:
“With this ruling in favor of our clients, the Court of Appeals has made clear that people of faith are not second-class citizens—they are deserving of full respect and the protection of the United States Constitution in their free exercise of religion. By unlawfully and intrusively probing our staff and students’ religious beliefs, the University rendered value judgments that not only reeked of religious bigotry but violated our clients’ constitutional rights, as well as basic decency. We are grateful for this strong court decision in favor of religious liberty. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that no government entity has the right to appoint itself as a doctrinal tribunal that defines which religious beliefs count as deeply and sincerely held and deem those religious beliefs valid or invalid. We are also encouraged that this ruling reaffirms and strengthens our bedrock First Amendment protections for countless many others into the future.”
The Thomas More Society filed the appeal on behalf of 17 faculty and students who alleged the university refused to accommodate their sincerely held religious objections to COVID-19 vaccine requirements.
How The Controversy Began
The controversy began when the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus enacted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on September 1, 2021, compelling all students and employees to be vaccinated. Initially, the university offered a simple checkbox for individuals to claim a religious exemption. However, subsequent revisions complicated this policy, stating that only religious beliefs explicitly opposed to all forms of immunization would be recognized. This effectively narrowed the scope of who could be exempt, based on the university’s interpretation of valid religious objections to vaccination.
The Appellate Court found that both the original and revised mandates violated the Constitution. Particularly, these policies contravened the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The court criticized the university for selecting which religious beliefs were acceptable for exemptions, a practice seen as a form of religious discrimination. The ruling emphasized that the university’s approach to handling exemptions displayed “religious animus” by setting standards on which religious reasons were sufficient to warrant an exemption, thereby overstepping its boundaries by judging religious validity.
The court’s decision to rule the vaccine mandate unconstitutional has significant implications for the students and staff at the University of Colorado. Many who were compelled to get vaccinated under duress now feel vindicated that their constitutional rights are recognized.
Ruling Sets Future Legal Precedents
The ruling sets a significant legal precedent that may affect how educational institutions across the country handle similar mandates. The emphasis on constitutional rights and the scrutiny of policies under strict scrutiny principles mean that future mandates must be carefully tailored. They must not only show a compelling state interest but also must be neutral and inclusive in their exemptions processing. Universities and colleges are now more aware that policies related to health mandates must be equitable and must not discriminate based on the validation of religious beliefs.
The legal outcome at the University of Colorado serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between protecting public health and upholding individual constitutional rights. Institutions are now tasked with designing policies that respect these dual imperatives, a challenge that will likely provoke further legal debates and decisions in the future.
