Amish Religious Exemption from Vaccination Requirements
attorney_strategy_discussion.mp3
Whether neutral and generally applicable laws should receive strict scrutiny when they burden religious exercise
"Some Supreme Court justices have previously voiced their opinion that the Smith decision should be overruled"
Whether removing religious exemptions while maintaining medical exemptions constitutes targeting religion
"They specifically took away the religious exemption... they ended up targeting religion"
Whether the law fails strict scrutiny due to availability of medical but not religious exemptions
"They will give an exemption for medical, but they won't give it for religion. That means it's not generally applicable"
Whether forced vaccination implicates bodily autonomy rights that could appeal to liberal justices
"They're trying to put something into their body so there may be bodily autonomy arguments that the left would be sympathetic to"
Strong supporter of religious liberty, likely to view Smith as problematic precedent
Emphasize historical religious persecution and need for constitutional protection
None identified - natural ally
Has explicitly criticized Smith in previous opinions, textualist approach favors religious liberty
Focus on textual meaning of Free Exercise Clause and historical understanding
None identified - strong ally
Originalist approach and strong religious liberty record, likely Smith opponent
Historical analysis of Founding Era religious liberty protections
None identified - reliable vote
Religious liberty supporter but may prefer narrower grounds than overturning Smith
Emphasize narrow application to insular religious communities
May prefer incremental approach over broad Smith reversal
Moderate conservative, may support religious liberty but concerned about broad implications
Focus on limited impact to insular Amish communities
Worried about broader civil rights implications
Institutional concerns may outweigh religious liberty sympathies
Emphasize judicial minimalism and narrow ruling possibility
Institutional impact of overturning major precedent
Liberal justice but may be sympathetic to bodily autonomy and minority rights arguments
Frame as minority rights and bodily autonomy issue
Generally supports government authority, skeptical of religious exemptions
Strong government authority supporter, but may consider minority rights angle
Emphasize protection of vulnerable minority communities
Public health priorities, skeptical of religious exemptions
Likely to prioritize public health over religious exemptions
Focus on historical persecution of religious minorities
Strong public health advocate, skeptical of religious exemptions
Leverage Pennsylvania's unique history as birthplace of American religious liberty
Rationale: Attorneys noted Pennsylvania's colonial experience with religious accommodation led to 'unintended consequence of peace and prosperity'
Target: All justices - appeals to originalist and pragmatic concerns
Brief should extensively cite Pennsylvania's colonial religious liberty experiments and their positive outcomes
Emphasize insular, peaceful nature of Amish communities
Rationale: Attorneys highlighted Amish are 'contained,' 'keep to themselves,' and pose minimal public risk
Target: Moderate conservatives concerned about broader implications
Detailed description of Amish insularity, self-sufficiency, and minimal public interaction
Distinguish between asking government to do something vs. asking to be left alone
Rationale: Attorneys noted abstention claims are more sympathetic than accommodation demands
Target: Liberal justices concerned about government establishment
Frame as simple request to abstain from government-mandated action, not special accommodation
Include bodily autonomy framing to appeal to liberal justices
Rationale: Attorneys identified this as potential bridge to liberal justices
Target: Liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson)
Supplement religious liberty arguments with bodily autonomy principles
Provide Court with narrow grounds for ruling without overturning Smith
Rationale: Attorneys acknowledged Court could apply strict scrutiny without Smith reversal
Target: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett
Argue law is not generally applicable due to medical exemption availability
Political sensitivity around vaccines could make justices reluctant to take case
"Because this case deals with vaccines... there may be less desire to deal with this issue"
Emphasize this involves traditional childhood vaccines, not COVID vaccines
Three justices may worry about impact on broader civil rights enforcement
"The biggest deterrent from taking the case... the broader civil rights area"
Emphasize narrow application to insular religious communities
Liberal justices may prioritize public health over religious liberty
"The more liberal judges might not want to deal with this case"
Argue limited public health impact from insular Amish communities
State will argue broad authority to protect public health through vaccination requirements
Distinguish from true emergencies; emphasize targeted nature of religious exemption removal
State will argue religious exemptions provide unfair advantage over secular objectors
Emphasize constitutional special status of religious liberty; distinguish from secular preferences
State will argue religious exemptions could undermine all public health measures
Emphasize narrow application to insular communities with minimal public interaction