New York Is Fining Amish Schools Over Vaccines, So the Amish Are Asking the Supreme Court for Help

New York state’s Amish community has been facing heavy government fines for allowing students to attend Amish schools without proof of vaccination. Now the Amish are asking the Supreme Court to intervene.  

From 1966 to 2019, unvaccinated students were allowed to attend school in New York with a medical exemption issued by a physician, or if they “hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs” opposed to vaccination. But in 2018 and through 2019, a measles outbreak—the largest in nearly 20 years—spread among the state’s Orthodox Jewish communities. Through effective disease control practices, the outbreak was contained with zero associated deaths.

Rattled, officials amended the state’s legal code in June 2019 to remove all religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates. The legislator who introduced the bill, Jeffrey Dinowitz (D–Bronx), attributed the outbreak to “misinformation and irresponsible rhetoric.” But instead of scaling up information campaigns, he chose to crack down on religious freedom.

In 2022, the government issued $118,000 in fines targeting three rural Amish schoolhouses—all of which are privately run, privately funded, and exclusively attended by members of the local Amish community—for failing to comply with the mandate. 

Amongst New York’s Amish, vaccination is generally rare. “Positions vary,” says Cory Anderson, a Penn State expert on Amish health—and an Amish man himself. “But there is hesitation toward integrating unfamiliar and invasive medical practices.”

A group of Amish plaintiffs responded with Miller v. McDonald. Their suit argues that the 2019 expansion of New York’s vaccine mandates violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion. 

Under precedent set by Employment Division v. Smith (1990), a law may burden religious exercise only if meets the “rational basis” test and if it is “neutral and generally applicable.” The Amish argue that the expanded mandate is not neutral because “the State targeted religious adherents by eliminating [the] long-standing religious exemption while leaving the medical exemption process in place.”

Federal courts disagreed. In 2024, the District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that the law “is neutral on its face, neither targeting religious belief nor singling it out for particularly harsh treatment.” In 2025, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

While courts have historically relied on Smith to measure violations of the Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court has recently begun to adopt a broader interpretation of the clause, expanding parental religious rights. The Supreme Court recommended that the appellate court reconsider its rejection of the Amish petitioners, in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor. In that 2025 case, the Court ruled that parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of certain educational programs that conflict with their religious beliefs. 

First Liberty counsel Hiram Sasser, who is co-representing the Amish plaintiffs, tells Reason that this re-evaluation was needed because “Mahmoud revived an older case, [Wisconsin v. Yoder], that specifically involved the Amish and preserving their way of life as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” In this 1972 decision, the Court determined that requiring all youth to attend high school unduly limited the Amish community’s free exercise of their religion. 

The 2nd Circuit reassessed Miller in June, but it determined that Mahmoud was not applicable because the vaccine requirement “does not regulate what children are taught [and] does not require them to affirm any belief.” With June’s decision bearing down, the Amish schools are now appealing for a second time. “Only the Supreme Court can save them now,” Sasser says. 

New York’s vaccine mandates are unusually restrictive. “Presently, forty-five states have legislation allowing school-age children to be exempt from mandatory vaccination laws for religious reasons,” Sasser notes.

There are more productive ways to manage the state’s prevailing interest in health. “For many populations, public health needs to be a resource that can educate, not a hard top-down approach,” says Anderson, the Amish health expert. In 2014, a measles outbreak in Ohio swept through Amish groups there. In response, local health authorities worked closely with the Amish community and found the group surprisingly willing to cooperate, taking vaccines and isolating themselves when infected. 

Praising that 2014 success, Anderson writes in STAT, “Successful outreach requires making effort to understand how religious adherents think, acknowledging their concerns, and humbly recognizing that medical knowledge is shaped by more than mere empiricism.” The New York government has not made that effort.

The Supreme Court has until November 2 to decide if it will hear the case again. If it declines, the state’s regulations will prevail, and many of the Amish will leave.