A Win for Consent and Religious Freedom
In a pivotal moment for medical freedom, the U.S. Supreme Court on December 8, 2025, issued orders that could dismantle coercive vaccine policies and the frequent removal of excemptions. Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), hails these developments as cracking open the legal framework behind mandates, emphasizing that “coercion is not consent.” AFLDS has long advocated against emergency decrees overriding bodily autonomy.
Miller v. McDonald
The first case, Miller v. McDonald (No. 25-133), involves Amish parents and schools challenging New York’s 2019 law eliminating religious exemptions for school vaccines, also for private Amish schools. Enacted amid a measles outbreak, the policy imposed enormeous fines for non-compliance, forcing families into tough choices like homeschooling or relocation. Lower courts, including the Second Circuit in March 2025, upheld the law as a neutral public health measure under precedents like Employment Division v. Smith (1990).
However, the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and remanded it for review in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor (June 2025), a Supreme Court decision in which the high court ruled 6-3 that parents can opt their children out of a Maryland school district’s LGBT-themed curriculum due to religious objections, expanding parental religious opt-outs.This signals stricter scrutiny: States must prove mandates don’t unduly burden faith without compelling, narrowly tailored reasons. Liberty Counsel, representing the plaintiffs, calls it a revival for faith-based objections, potentially restoring exemptions nationwide.
Does 1-2 v. Hochul
The second case, Does 1-2 v. Hochul (No. 24-1015), stems from New York’s 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, which revoked religious accommodations, leading to thousands of terminations. Christian plaintiffs argued it violated Title VII’s (Civil Rights of 1964) requirement for employers to accommodate sincere beliefs unless causing undue hardship. Lower courts deferred to state emergency powers, but the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General’s views on certiorari, a step often preceding full review. This probes whether New York’s blanket denials of exemptions clashed with federal civil rights, treating vaccine safety claims as unassailable facts without evidence.
Informed consent
At the core, it is a question about consent: True informed consent demands voluntary, risk-aware decisions, not ultimatums like job loss or fines.
Hesitancy isn’t irrational; it’s logical self-protection amid incomplete data on long-term effects or alternatives. Ethically, the Nuremberg Code’s bans on coerced experiments, while legally, it upholds Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) limits on police powers. Mandates invert “do no harm” by prioritizing collective goals over personal sovereignty. These rulings build on an emphasis on individual rights, potentially curbing future overreach in pandemics.
Vaccines remain shielded by the PREP Act and 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act – granting manufacturers near-total immunity – meaning individuals bear all harms without recourse.
Inalienable rights and the Constitution don’t vanish in emergencies.
