California is a de facto mandatory vaccination state for school attendance. Students must receive more than 30 doses of ten vaccines to attend school.
Now, half a dozen lawsuits give new hope for the restoration of exemptions, and even hope for the end of mandates.
The three current legal pursuits are: 1/ restoring the religious exemption, 2/ expanding the medical exemption to include students with an ADA disability, and 3/ ending mandates altogether.
Free Now Foundation is the only group working on lawsuits 2 and 3.
This article is about exciting new developments in the lawsuits aiming to restore the religious exemption.
Four Landmark Religious Exemption Cases Poised for Success
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard four landmark cases—Sarah Royce, We the Patriots, Shermeena Grimsby, and Jane Doe—that could finally restore religious freedom for parents of California’s schoolchildren.
The battle boils down to which yardstick— or standard— the court will decide to use.
The standard of review is basically a “judicial rulebook” that determines how much the state has to prove before it can trample on your rights.
The “Easy A” for the State of California: Rational Basis Review
Currently, California is hiding behind the lowest judicial bar, called rational basis review. Using this yardstick, the state only has to show that its law is “rationally related” to a legitimate goal, like public health.
It’s essentially an “Easy A” for the government; if they have any plausible excuse, they usually win.
The state argues that because SB 277 removed personal and religious exemptions for everyone, the law is “neutral” and doesn’t deserve a closer look.
The state basically goes to a [fictional] site called thestateisalwaysright.gov and that’s that.
Think again. Enter the four religious exemption lawsuits that argue otherwise.
The “High Bar” for California Parental Rights: Strict Scrutiny
Attorneys on our side are demanding the court apply a different yardstick representing a higher basis of review: strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the state loses its presumption of being right.
Instead, the government must prove two things: first, that it has a “compelling interest” (a life-or-death necessity), and second, that its law is “narrowly tailored” using the “least restrictive means” possible.
Narrowly Tailored: Under strict scrutiny, a law is “narrowly tailored” if it is precisely crafted to achieve the government’s compelling interest without being overly broad or unnecessarily burdening constitutional rights, meaning it targets the specific problem in a focused way rather than using a blunt, sweeping approach.
Least Restrictive Means: The “least restrictive means” requirement demands that, among all available alternatives that would equally advance the compelling governmental interest, the government must choose the one that imposes the smallest possible burden on the protected right (such as religious freedom), and if any less burdensome option exists, the law fails strict scrutiny.
If strict scrutiny applies, the state’s argument that it must exclude a tiny group of religious children starts to look absurd.
To estimate how big the religious group is, we can look at how many children had a personal belief exemption (PBE) in 2015 before SB 277 stripped that right from parents. Only 2.5% of students had a PBE at the time, and the religious group was a subset. Thus, were the religious exemption restored, fewer than 2.5% of students might be candidates.
Many Types of Secular Exemptions, Failing Strict Scrutiny Review
The Supreme Court recently clarified that a law is not neutral if it allows secular exceptions but denies religious ones. This is the “Individualized Exemption” rule from the Fulton case.
Basically, there is a glaring double standard. There are five other categories of unvaccinated people in the school system: 1/ IEP students, 2/ unvaccinated adults including teachers, 3/ students aged 18 and older, 4/ students in independent study, and 5/ students who have vaccination plans with a 30-day grace period.
Since California grants discretionary medical exemptions and allows the almost 15% of students with IEPs to be unvaccinated or partially vaccinated with no need to apply for a medical exemption, they cannot claim the law applies to everyone equally.
Furthermore, as argued in the Grimsby case by Attorney Chris Wiest, the state permits more than a half million adults—teachers, staff, and bus drivers—to mix with students, whether or not they have vaccinations. Under the Tanden “comparability” test, if an unvaccinated teacher poses the same risk as an unvaccinated child, the state cannot ban the child for religious reasons while giving the teacher a pass.
There are other groups of allowable unvaccinated students in schools as well— students in independent study can come to campus for extracurricular activities such as: science labs, art, PE, or subject-specific sessions taught by credentialed teachers. Students who are at least 18 years old do not have to be vaccinated. Students whose families have agreed to comply with school vaccination requirements have a 30-day grace period.
As attorney Chris Wiest noted in the 9th Circuit hearings on these religious exemption cases, the Supreme Court has ruled the government can “brook no opt outs” if it wants to claim its health interest is truly absolute.
Unfortunately for the State of California, the brook is clearly full of opt-outs and potential opt-outs, so it will have a hard time arguing the state’s mandatory vaccine law applies to everyone equally.
A Bench Representing Three Eras of Power
Deciding this “rulebook” shift is a panel of three judges, each appointed by a different administration:
- Judge Consuelo Callahan (Appointed by George W. Bush).
- Judge Patrick Bumatay (Appointed by Donald Trump).
- Judge Myrna Paez (Appointed by Joe Biden).
Justice Is Likely Coming in 2026 or 2027
There is real reason for optimism, especially in the Grimsby case. The court is feeling the heat from recent Supreme Court rulings like Mahmood and Mirabelli, religious cases regarding gender curriculum which affirm parental rights are fundamental and deserve the highest protection. Mirabelli was also specific about upbringing of children, which includes medical decision-making.
The Ninth Circuit knows that if they ignore this shift and rule for the state, the Supreme Court is waiting in the wings to overturn them.
With these 9th Circuit religious exemption cases and the SCOTUS parental rights cases affirming or suggesting religious rights around gender and curriculum, we are watching the legal foundation for medical coercion crumble. We may see a win in the 9th Circuit this year, restoring the religious exemption for California students.
If not, it’s certain these cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and likely by 2027, we may finally see the “High Bar” of strict scrutiny used to shield our families once and for all, restoring the religious exemption not just for California, but for every state.
These potential religious wins would rest on both the 1st and 14th Amendments. An affirmation in one of these religious cases of the 14th Amendment due process right to parent a minor would soften the legal landscape for Free Now Foundation’s due process case to ends mandates entirely. Either way, our due process case is poised for success on its own as well, and we are not waiting for the 9th Circuit’s decision in these four cases.
In 1996, Ms. Mayer was running a worldwide research group for Apple Inc., when she got 6 vaccines for a vacation and became disabled, brain damaged and lost her career. Now substantially recovered, she is Board Chair & President of Free Now Foundation, the leading medical freedom law non-profit in California.
Ms. Mayer is an in-demand speaker, and her lively presentations on 1/ The Measles Manipulation of RFK Jr., 2/ REAL ID: Weaponized Architecture, 3/ ABV: Anything But Vaccines and 4/ The Legal Howdunit of COVID have earned her recognition and accolades. "I know women in VP positions who do not hold a candle to this woman's sunlight," stated a commenter on a recent interview with Mike Adams, "She gives me hope that humanity still lives."
Ms. Mayer formerly served on the Children's Health Defense (CHD) board, co-founded & served as Chairman of CHD’s most successful Chapter in California, helping raise in excess of $5M, and served on RFK Jr’s Presidential campaign finance committee, raising hundreds of thousands for the campaign.
In 2022, she won the Golden Bear Award and a presentation she gave to Dr. Mercola was named a "Best of" interview. Her favorite award is her "Freedominator" Rock given by Marin Freedom Rising in 2023. Ms. Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family, and has degrees from Duke (BA) and Northwestern (MBA.)
Good luck!
IMO religious exemptions are religious discrimination. Why should people who profess “qualifying” beliefs have greater medical freedom than those with other beliefs? BRING BACK PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS FOR ALL WHO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF CURRENTLY MANDATED MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS
We agree! That’s why Free Now Foundation has a case that would end mandates, making exemptions obsolete. We will support all exemptions and paths to broadening exemptions in the meantime.