Appellate court ruling got it right on immunization exemptions

Last week, the California Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to California's new immunization law. Love v. Department of Education, C086030 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist., Nov. 20, 2018). In June 2015, California's law changed to remove the personal belief exemption to school immunization requirements. From that point on, with a few exceptions, children entering a daycare or school, children starting kindergarten, or children entering seventh grade, could not attend school without receiving vaccines against the 10 diseases required by law, unless they had a medical exemption from vaccinating.

Unsurprisingly, groups opposing vaccines appealed the law. As of Nov. 19, 2018, three federal district courts, two state superior courts, and one appellate court have upheld the law's constitutionality. The new appellate decision, which was unpublished, follows that approach. The 3rd District panel did not mince words. It stated that "Plaintiffs' arguments are strong on hyperbole and scant on authority." This language reflects the challenge facing plaintiffs and those similarly situated: No state or federal court has ever found school immunization mandates unconstitutional (though courts have set limits on how exemptions can be applied).

These decisions rested on the fact that extensive evidence shows that school mandates work to prevent disease outbreaks, and that over a hundred years of jurisprudence supports their constitutionality. Many studies show that stronger school mandate laws mean fewer outbreaks, and protecting children from potentially fatal, dangerous and preventable disease is a highly valued interest in our system. A recent appellate decision in California on this issue, Brown v. Smith, 24 Cal. App. 5th 1135 (2018), described "compulsory vaccination" as long-recognized to be "the gold standard for preventing the spread of contagious diseases."

The Love decision rejected the plaintiffs' claim that their substantive due process rights, their children's right to education, their rights to privacy, and their religious freedom were violated largely based on the existing jurisprudence, and on the previous decisions regarding Senate Bill 277 in California itself, especially Brown v. Smith and Whitlow v. Cal. Dept. of Education, 203 F.Supp.3d 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2016). It is not yet clear whether the plaintiffs will appeal.

Groups opposing SB 277 by and large believe vaccines are dangerous and cause extensive harms. Their claims go against abundant scientific evidence, and are rejected by almost all experts and all health authorities at every level of government and in research. California courts are right to follow the established jurisprudence and refuse to allow a misguided minority to undermine the Legislature's efforts to make schools safer.