On May 23, 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Mountain State Justice filed a lawsuit in Kanawha County Circuit Court challenging Governor Patrick Morrisey’s executive order permitting religious and philosophical exemptions to school vaccination requirements. The exemptions apply to vaccines currently mandated for school attendance in West Virginia, including those for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, hepatitis B, and varicella (chickenpox).
The plaintiffs, two parents of immunocompromised children, argue that the governor overstepped his authority by unilaterally changing public health policy. “Governors do not rule by decree,” said ACLU-WV Legal Director Aubrey Sparks. “At the center of this lawsuit is who gets to make these decisions for our students. On this question, the state Constitution is clear that the authority lies with the Legislature, not the governor” (acluwv.org).
Governor Morrisey’s January 2025 executive order instructed the West Virginia Department of Health to begin recognizing religious and philosophical exemptions under the 2023 Equal Protection for Religion Act, which prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” religious freedom unless it proves a “compelling interest.” Previously, West Virginia had one of the strictest vaccine mandates in the nation, allowing only medical exemptions to school immunization requirements.
The lawsuit does not challenge the legitimacy of religious beliefs but focuses instead on the process through which vaccine policy is established. The legal complaint emphasizes that the state Legislature—not the executive branch—has the constitutional authority to make such changes. In March 2025, the House of Delegates rejected Senate Bill 460, which would have legislatively established the same religious and philosophical exemptions now being enforced by the governor’s order (newsandsentinel.com).
Judge Kenneth Ballard of the Kanawha County Circuit Court has been assigned to the case. A hearing date has not yet been announced.
Another Take:
The ACLU suing over religious vaccine exemptions is like seeing a lifeguard sprint across the beach—not because someone’s drowning, but because someone brought a cross-shaped beach towel. Sure, the lawsuit’s officially about executive authority, but let’s not kid ourselves—the ACLU tends to treat religion the way a vampire treats garlic. They’ll defend your right to burn a flag, but start talking about faith in public policy and suddenly it’s all “compelling interest” and “substantial burden” like they’re trying to evict Moses from the courthouse steps.
Vaccines aren’t a religious issue in most traditions—no major faith bans them—but when parents claim a faith-based exemption, it lights up the ACLU radar faster than a nativity scene on government property. It’s not that they’re anti-religion, exactly—they’re just really, really picky about when and where it’s allowed to exist.
It seems to me that you are being too harsh on the ACLU. I have seen many times the ACLU has defended religious people and their rights. This case looks to me more like a case where parents with immunocompromised children would like the law to stay the same. If it is also true that West Virginia law gives this power to the Legislature and not the Governor, and the Legislature rejected the same exemption in March of this year, then it is an overreach by the Governor, similar to what more than one President has done in the recent past, when they don’t get what they want out of the Legislative branch. Some overreaches are clearly attacks on the Constitution. It will be interesting to see how the Court rules on this. There are strong public health reasons to oppose what the Governor has done. We know that when herd immunity drops below 95% the risk to the unvaccinated and the immunocompromised starts escalating quickly. Look at the recent measles outbreak. That places those immunocompromised children at risk and I can see why their parents would want to find an avenue to attack this. They are also probably, because of medical bills, unable to afford to take on a case like this out of their own pockets, so that leaves them few choices, and the ACLU has been willing to take on cases that have some merit but the people needing the help, can’t afford to do it themselves.