In a landmark ruling earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit delivered a scathing rebuke to the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical School, declaring its COVID-19 vaccine mandate unconstitutional.
The 55-page ruling emphasized that the mandate to exclude religious exemptions was tainted by “religious animus” and thus violated the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.
The court’s ruling overturns an earlier ruling by a lower court and ends a contentious legal action brought by the Thomas More Society on behalf of 17 faculty, staff and students.
These individuals face severe consequences, including dismissal and expulsion, for refusing to comply with the university’s vaccine policy because of their deep-seated religious beliefs.
In September 2021, the University of Colorado required all individuals entering its facilities or participating in its programs to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, with strictly limited exemptions, under its controversial policy. Legal challenges quickly emerged as affected parties claimed their religious freedom rights had been violated.
“Lawyers for the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit in September 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the University of Colorado, the dean of the Anschutz Medical College, and the school’s senior associate dean for medical education. The original lawsuit was against a Catholic In October 2021, more than a dozen faculty, staff, and students were added to the lawsuit, filed by doctors and a Buddhist student who were prevented from getting vaccinated because of their sincere and deeply held religious beliefs. They are seeking unlawful discrimination and abuse against the university. Fundamental constitutional rights to injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees,” the Thomas More Society said in its press release.
Peter Breen, executive vice president and litigation director of the Thomas More Society, said: “The Court of Appeal has now made clear that the University of Colorado abused faculty, staff and students of faith during the coronavirus pandemic. What we fight. These health care providers were hailed as heroes because they bravely served on the front lines during the worst of the pandemic, but when their religious principles conflicted with those of University of Colorado bureaucrats, these heroes were Ruthlessly abandoned.
“With this ruling in favor of our client, the Court of Appeals has made clear that people of faith are not second-class citizens—they deserve the full respect and protection of the U.S. Constitution in the free exercise of their religious beliefs. By being illegal and intrusive By thoroughly investigating the religious beliefs of our faculty, staff, and students, the value judgments made by the University not only smack of religious bigotry but also violate our customers’ constitutional rights and basic decency. We are grateful for the court’s strong ruling in favor of religious freedom.
“The Court of Appeal correctly ruled that no governmental entity has the authority to appoint itself a doctrinal tribunal to define which religious beliefs are considered deeply and sincerely held and to consider those religious beliefs to be valid or invalid. We are also encouraged that , this ruling reaffirms and strengthens our basic First Amendment protections for countless others in the future,” Breen said.
The court’s findings are a shocking revelation of how university administrations make arbitrary decisions about what constitutes legitimate religious beliefs.
Specific examples cited in the ruling included unfair treatment of Roman Catholic and Buddhist applicants, whose objections to vaccination were treated as purely personal beliefs rather than genuine religious beliefs.
Additionally, the court questioned the sincerity of the university’s intrusive questioning of applicants’ religious beliefs, a practice that not only undermined personal dignity but also violated constitutional protections.
