About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

83 Ohio St. L.J. Sixth Cir. Rev. 1 (2022)

handle is hein.journals/osljsxcr83 and id is 1 raw text is: 







OHIO  STATE LAW JOURNAL   SIXTH CIRCUIT REVIEW


  Constitutional Interpretation Remains Unsettled
  After Sixth Circuit's Preliminary Assessment of
                University Vaccine Mandate

                         PATRICK  A. STEVENS*

    At the beginning of the 2021 school year, Western Michigan University
(WMU)   instituted a policy requiring student-athletes to be vaccinated against
COVID-19,   and sixteen student-athletes requested religious exemptions to this
requirement, which the university denied.1 Barred from participation in team
activities, these student-athletes sued WMU in federal court for allegedly
violating their rights under the First Amendment.2 The case reached the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals  as WMU sought a stay of the district   court's
preliminary injunction, which kept the school from enforcing the vaccination
requirement against the plaintiffs.3 Because the likelihood of success of a
plaintiff's claim is typically the determinative factor when the Sixth Circuit
decides whether to stay a district court's preliminary injunction,4 the court
declined to stay the preliminary injunction in Dahl v. Board of Trustees of
Western Michigan   University.5 The court's analysis in Dahl delineates the
distinctions between WMU's  vaccination requirement and mandates that are
constitutionally valid. This decision also spotlights the precarious balance
between  proper deference to sincerely held religious beliefs and misguided
deference to what may instead be political and social ideologies masquerading
as-or  entangled with religious beliefs.

  I. DISTINGUISHING WMU'S POLICY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL VACCINE
                              MANDATES

    Although   COVID-19    vaccines   are  safe, effective, and   highly
recommended,6  the student-athletes at WMU  are far from the only  group
challenging vaccine mandates by  state institutions on religious grounds in




*     Patrick A. Stevens is a J.D. candidate at The Ohio State University Moritz College
of Law and writes for THE OHIO STATE LAw JOURNAL Sixth Circuit Review.
     1 Dahl v. Bd. of Trs. of W. Mich. Univ., 15 F.4th 728, 730 (6th Cir. 2021) (per curiam)
[https://perma.cc/7FZD-HTUG].
     2Id.
     3 Id.
     4Id.
     5d. at 736.
     6 See, e.g., Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines, CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL  AND  PREVENTION (Oct. 7, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html [https://perma.cc/C8LT-MPDA].


2022]


1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most