Bacon v. Woodward

A city’s implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for firefighters was not generally applicable and failed strict scrutiny because it exempted neighboring firefighters while denying religious exemptions, and less restrictive means were available.

ReligiousLiberty.TV
February 26, 2026
0 min read
Cite This Case
Bacon v. Woodward, No. 22-35611 (2024).
✓ Copied! Standard law review / practitioner format. Verify against current Bluebook edition (21st ed.).
Bacon v. Woodward, No. 22-35611 (2024). https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/bacon-v-woodward/
✓ Copied! For legal scholarship in social science journals. Includes URL back to this case page.
Bacon v. Woodward (No. 22-35611) [2024] — A city's implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for firefighters was not generally applicable and failed strict scrutiny because it exempted neighboring firefighters while denying religious exemptions, and less restrictive means were available. Source: ReligiousLiberty.TV (https://religiousliberty.tv/case-library/bacon-v-woodward/, accessed April 10, 2026).
✓ Copied! For general audiences, journalism, press releases, and non-legal writing.
Citation: No. 22-35611 Year: 2024
Holding: A city's implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for firefighters was not generally applicable and failed strict scrutiny because it exempted neighboring firefighters while denying religious exemptions, and less restrictive means were available.
Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

Bacon v. Woodward (No. 22-35611) is a Free Exercise case in 2024. The court held that a city's implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for firefighters was not generally applicable and failed strict scrutiny because it exempted neighboring firefighters while denying religious exemptions, and less restrictive means were available.