A September 8, 2026 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Doe v. McDonald has been described as a win for vaccine mandates over religious freedom. The Washington Post headline states, “Supreme Court declines Catholic mother’s bid for son’s vaccine exemption in N.Y.” The article goes on to say that the Supreme Court “effectively sided with state and local officials, who argued that a religious exemption would undermine their attempts to prevent the spread of disease among children and the general public.” But what really happened in the case, and was the ruling really a win for vaccine mandates and a big hit against religious exemptions?

Doe v. McDonald, a vaccine religious exemption case

The state of New York ended religious exemptions for vaccines in 2019. In the spring of 2026, a Catholic mother in New York submitted a request for a religious exemption for her 5-year-old child, who was going into kindergarten in the fall of 2026. When the school notified her that her son could not attend school without proof of vaccination, she filed a lawsuit, stating that the vaccine requirements were unconstitutional. Because the lawsuit would still be ongoing when school was to start, the mother asked the federal district court to order the school to accept her child’s religious exemption. The district court denied her request. The plaintiff mother then filed a motion in the federal Second Circuit court for an order that the school accept her child pending appeal of the district court order, which the Second Circuit denied. The mother then requested emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to order that the school accept the child while the appeal went forward. The Supreme Court denied the request but stated that “Justices Alito and Gorsuch would grant the application.”

What does this Supreme Court decision mean?

Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court receives between 5,000 and 7,000 petitions for review. Of these, about 100–150 are granted review, and of those, about 70–80 receive full briefing and oral argument. The Court also addresses emergency requests that do not address the underlying issue in the case and are not fully briefed with oral argument. The request in Doe v. McDonald was for this sort of emergency order; it was not an appeal of any underlying issue. The constitutional issues in the case remain present before the federal district court to be addressed there.

Will the Supreme Court hear a different New York religious exemption case?

Another case, Miller v. McDonald II, will likely be before the U.S. Supreme Court first. This case has a convoluted history as well, with the case jumping from court to court. Miller v. McDonald I involves the decision in the Second Circuit to allow the New York school system to prohibit Amish children from attending without vaccines, against their religious beliefs. In Miller I, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Second Circuit for reconsideration of the opinion in light of new Supreme Court caselaw. The Second Circuit then simply came to the same conclusion, against the religious beliefs of the Amish. Attorney Aaron Siri, who is litigating the case, has stated that Miller will be going back to the Supreme Court. 

Are vaccines really about public safety if the unvaccinated are healthier?

A state, under its police power, has the right to create laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of those in the state. In the Miller case, the plaintiffs showed that the unvaccinated Amish children are in fact healthier than vaccinated American children. These healthier children, then, presumably, would be less likely to get ill and to be contagious to other children. Since vaccine laws primarily use contagion as a reason for infringing on religious rights, this case will be one to watch when it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.