Login
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is urging a New Jersey appeals court to overturn changes to the state’s school vaccination regulations, arguing that health officials exceeded their legal authority and violated safeguards protecting parental rights and religious freedom when they enacted the changes without following proper procedures.
In an amicus brief filed last month, CHD argued that New Jersey Department of Health Commissioner Raynard E. Washington lacked the proper authority to independently amend the State Sanitary Code without approval from the Public Health Council and a public hearing.
The sanitary code governs vaccination requirements, including procedures for evaluating religious and medical exemptions for children attending daycare, elementary and secondary schools, and higher education institutions.
CHD contends that the state violated its own laws by transferring rulemaking authority from the council to the health commissioner, which allowed the state to bypass the public hearing process, depriving parents of an opportunity to challenge regulations affecting their children’s medical care, health and religious beliefs.
The filing supports a lawsuit brought by the New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice and three individuals — Maria Quigley, Drew Cifrodelli and Jeff Schreiber — against the state Department of Health, Washington and the Public Health Council.
CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said the group joined the case because leadership in New Jersey failed to “follow proper processes in taking actions that impact parents and families.”
Mack Rosenberg added:
“We filed the amicus to connect the dots on the importance of state actors following the legislatively mandated processes for changing codes/regulations, particularly where, as here, they implicate important constitutionally protected rights such as the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and parental rights, protected through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.”
The case, New Jersey Coalition for Vaccine Choice v. New Jersey Department of Health, is before the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. A new court date has not been set.
CHD is asking the appeals court to vacate the challenged regulations and return the matter for further proceedings consistent with state law.
“Officials in New Jersey need to be called out where they take steps in violation of the law, particularly where such fundamental rights are implicated,” Mack Rosenberg said.
The case’s outcome could dictate whether the disputed regulations remain in effect and also clarify whether New Jersey health officials have the authority to amend vaccination rules.
Dana Wefer, a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case, told The Defender they are waiting for the court to schedule oral arguments.
Lawsuit challenges state’s vaccine rule changes
The dispute surfaced in December 2025, when the coalition challenged proposed changes to New Jersey’s vaccination regulations and the procedures used to adopt them.
The state enacted the vaccine recommendations on Jan. 20, 2026.
The changes expanded participation in New Jersey’s immunization registry and allowed private educational institutions to impose vaccination requirements beyond those established by the state.
The coalition challenged both the substance of the amendments and the process used to adopt them.
New Jersey’s immunization registry maintains vaccination records used by healthcare providers and public health officials. State officials use immunization records to monitor vaccination coverage and respond to disease outbreaks.
The legal argument centers on whether the Department of Health had the legal authority to adopt the amendments without the procedures the coalition contends are required by state law.
CHD’s filing argues the commissioner cannot independently exercise authority assigned by the legislature to the Public Health Council.
Washington could not be reached for this story. The New Jersey Department of Health and the Public Health Council did not respond to requests for comment.
CHD says commissioner exceeded legal authority
CHD also argues in the brief that the New Jersey Legislature delegated responsibility for amending the State Sanitary Code to the Public Health Council.
The council was established as a public health policymaking body whose members are appointed by the governor.
According to CHD, the legislature intended the council’s structure and public hearing requirements to prevent executive officials from making unilateral decisions. The commissioner bypassed those safeguards by adopting the disputed regulations without the required council vote and hearing.
CHD called the commissioner’s actions “ultra vires,” a legal term meaning beyond the authority granted by law, and stated the commissioner “not only circumvented the legislatively-mandated vote by a properly constituted PHC [Public Health Council], it also denied a public hearing before the Council.”
They also state that the process violated the separation-of-powers provisions of the New Jersey Constitution.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
Parental rights and religious freedom at issue
Beyond the battle over administrative authority, CHD argues that the regulations affect parents’ rights to direct their children’s medical care, education and religious upbringing.
CHD cited the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom and the 14th Amendment’s protection of parental liberty.
In its filing, CHD cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which addressed parents’ religious objections to instructional materials in public schools.
CHD argues that the principles established in this case and other similar cases should guide the New Jersey court’s review of the vaccination regulations.
The brief maintains that procedural protections, including public hearings, provide parents an opportunity to challenge government actions that affect their children’s medical care and religious beliefs.
Dodging those procedures deprived families of an important opportunity to object to the regulations before they were adopted, CHD argued.
Related articles in The Defender
- New Jersey’s New Health Rules Would Strip Control From Families, Medical Freedom Groups Say
- CHD Urges Supreme Court to Protect West Virginians’ Religious Freedom and Parents’ Rights
- Florida Parents, Doctors Clash Over Plan to Drop 4 Vaccine Mandates for Schoolchildren
- New Jersey Jury Awards More Than $670,000 to Fired Worker Denied COVID Vaccine Exemption
- Idaho’s Landmark Medical Freedom Act Survives First Legal Challenge
- New York Teen Forced Out of School After Judge Denies Medical Exemption
