Login
Connecticut parents who sued the state after lawmakers eliminated the religious exemption from school vaccination requirements are asking a Superior Court judge to reject the state’s effort to dismiss their lawsuit.
In their lawsuit, filed in 2022, the parents alleged the state violated Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when it removed the religious exemption in 2021.
Since then, lawmakers passed a new law that amends the religious-freedom statute to exclude certain immunization requirements, including those governing public and private schools, from its protections.
In an Aug. 11 filing in Stamford Superior Court, the parents’ attorney, Lindy R. Urso, accused Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration of using the new law to avoid having the courts decide if the 2021 elimination of the religious exemption violated RFRA.
The case, Keira Spillane v. Ned Lamont, has been pending for several years. The state argued that it could not be sued. However, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that the plaintiff’s constitutional claims raised legitimate concerns. The court also found that Connecticut’s law protecting religious freedom could allow the parents to sue the state in this situation.
The lawsuit stems from Public Act 21-6, enacted in 2021, which phased out Connecticut’s longstanding religious exemption from mandatory school vaccinations. The law left exemptions in place for certain children who were already enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 or preschool before April 28, 2021.
In 2022, Keira Spillane and two other families sued Lamont and the state’s public health commissioner, Dr. Manisha Juthani, and education commissioner, Charlene Russell-Tucker. The parents contend that the 2021 law substantially burdens their religious exercise and cannot survive the strict standard contained in Connecticut General Statutes Title 52 Section 571b, the state’s RFRA.
But while the lawsuit was pending, the General Assembly passed House Bill 5044 (H.B. 5044), a broader vaccine-standards measure that became Public Act 26-3 after Lamont signed it April 27.
The new law expressly amended the religious-freedom statute to exclude certain immunization requirements — including those governing public and private schools — from its protections. It applies to pending civil actions, which include the parents’ lawsuit, and actions filed after the law took effect.
According to the parents, lawmakers crafted the new provision specifically to undermine their lawsuit.
“The defendants and their Democrat cohorts throughout our government have used their overwhelming power in the most despicable manner imaginable by enacting a new law that is designed solely to defeat this lawsuit,” Urso wrote in the Aug. 11 response.
The sharply worded filing accuses state officials and lawmakers of acting in bad faith as they “changed the rules” while the case was moving toward trial.
The court has not yet responded to the Aug. 11 filing.
A request for comment sent to Lamont’s office and attorneys representing him in the case went unanswered.
State ‘fled from’ claim against RFRA
The new statute reflects the state’s position on religious exemptions: Public Act 26-3 says Connecticut’s RFRA does not apply to the specified immunization requirements.
The act also makes broader changes to the state’s vaccination system, including requiring the Department of Public Health to establish an immunization standard of care and expanding the role of pharmacists in administering certain vaccines.
The General Assembly’s official bill history shows that H.B. 5044 was introduced in February, passed the House and Senate in April, signed by Lamont on April 27, and designated Public Act 26-3 on April 30.
The response filed by the parents argues that the new law should not be treated as a judicial resolution.
“Defendants did not defeat Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim,” Urso wrote. “They fled from it.”
The filing also questions the motivations of House Speaker Matt Ritter, alleging that his professional and family connections to the pharmaceutical industry raise questions about his role in the vaccination legislation.
The filing cites Ritter’s law firm, Shipman & Goodwin, and its representation of pharmaceutical companies.
Those assertions have not been independently established in the filing.
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.
Connecticut’s current school-immunization statute requires children to receive specified vaccinations before enrolling in public or private schools, subject to medical and other statutory exceptions.
The state’s Department of Public Health continues to list immunization requirements for elementary, middle and high school students.
The new law’s RFRA provision raises a question that now sits at the center of the litigation. Can Connecticut deny religious-freedom protections for student vaccination requirements?
That’s a primary driver for the parents who are asking the Superior Court to deny the state’s motion to dismiss and allow their challenge to proceed.
The case is pending in the Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford.
Related articles in The Defender
- Critics Accuse Connecticut Lawmakers of Interfering in Religious Exemption Lawsuit
- ‘Not Going Down Without a Fight’: Hundreds Testify Against Connecticut Bills Expanding State Vaccine Powers
- Connecticut Lawmakers Vote to Repeal Religious Exemptions to Vaccines, Health Freedom Advocates Vow Legal Challenge
- Public Support for Religious Exemptions Nearly Doubled Over Past 6 Years
- Vaccine Religious Exemptions: What to Know as Your Child Heads Back to School
