Court of Appeal throws out challenge to state vaccination law

In a ringing endorsement of immunization mandates, described as the "as the gold standard for preventing the spread of contagious diseases," the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District rejected a challenge to the Senate Bill 277, the law that removed the personal belief exemption from school immunization requirements. This is the first appellate decision in California about the law, but it draws on over a century of history supporting immunization mandates and a very well-reasoned federal district court decision. By upholding the law, it also helps keep California's schools and communities safer from infectious diseases. It will make it harder for future plaintiffs to challenge SB277.

SB277 was signed into law at the end of June 2015. Practically, it means that children who reach kindergarten or 7th grade, or enter daycare for the first time, must meet their age-appropriate immunization requirement unless they have a medical exemption (and in some situations, students with an "individualized education program" may also be exempt). Unsurprisingly, parents who believe vaccines are harmful opposed the law. Five lawsuits have been brought against the law so far, and all were rejected at the trial level. Two were appealed. Brown v. Smith, 2018 DJDAR 6599 (July 2, 2018), is the first appellate decision on SB277's validity, and it's a strong endorsement of the law's constitutionality.

The court reminded us of the evidence that personal belief exemptions decrease vaccination rates, and that some areas in California had high enough exemption rates to be at risk of outbreaks, even though the overall state rate was high. There is, indeed, a large literature showing that less strict immunization mandates increase the rate of exemptions, and that higher rates of exemptions increase the risk of outbreaks. The court took judicial notice of vaccines' safety and effectiveness, rejecting the plaintiffs' attempt to claim vaccines are extremely dangerous.

The plaintiffs appeared to think their strongest argument was "mischaracterizing" (as the court stated) a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011). The plaintiffs tried to characterize that decision as finding vaccines dangerous and defective, while in reality, the decision emphasized the benefits of vaccines and importance of vaccination programs to prevent children's deaths.

The Court of Appeal also soundly rejected plaintiffs' religious freedom claim, pointing to the extensive federal jurisprudence that upheld vaccine mandates without a need for a religious exemption -- most recently Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015), and Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education, 419 Fed.Appx. 348 (4th Cir. 2011).

Both decisions drew heavily on "persuasive precedent" in the Supreme Court's 1944 decision in Prince v. Massachusetts, which stated that, "[a parent] cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67.

As to the right to education in California, the Court of Appeal put the authorities on that in context, reminding us that the relevant precedent -- Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584 (1971) -- focused on discriminating in relation to a fundamental interest, education, based on a suspect classification, wealth. That doesn't apply here: There is no suspect classification affected by SB277. But even if we applied strict scrutiny, fighting the spread of infectious diseases is a compelling interest, and school mandates are the right means to protect it. The Court of Appeal agreed with the first decision in relation to SB277 -- the district court's decision in Whitlow v. Cal. Dept. of Education, 203 F.Supp.3d 1079 (S.D.Cal. 2016) -- that:

"The right of education, fundamental as it may be, is no more sacred than any of the other fundamental rights that have readily given way to a State's interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and particularly, school children," and "removal of the [personal beliefs exemption] is necessary or narrowly drawn to serve the compelling objective of SB 277."

The Court of Appeal also found that there is no equal protection issue, because the distinctions the plaintiffs tried to draw -- for example, that the law treats vaccinated children and unvaccinated children differently, or children in different age groups differently -- don't raise equal protection concerns. These are not similarly situated children, or are rational classifications.

Brown v. Smith is a strong endorsement of school mandates, giving the state of California wide latitude to protect children from preventable diseases by requiring that they be vaccinated before going to school. It's well-reasoned, powerful, and aligns with science, public health, and over a century of jurisprudence. A win for reason and our children.