From Children’s Health Defense, we learn that the US Supreme Court yesterday “reversed a lower court decision against a group of Amish parents and school leaders who challenged the state of New York’s vaccine mandates for schools, ruling that the appeals court must reconsider the case. Today’s ruling could have implications for other states that don’t allow religious exemptions, attorneys said.”
The article is titled “‘Checkmate’: U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Huge Win for Religious Exemptions”.
But I have a different perspective and don’t consider it a huge win. It’s a victory in a very narrow sense, the way I see it.
This is not to denigrate the effort, just to put it into perspective and highlight an inherent risk of these types of cases. And the broader perspective is this: Neither our bodies nor our children’s are state property.
We are not slaves but have self-ownership, and as such, we have a right to decide what goes into our bodies and our children’s bodies, and the right to decide for ourselves whether to undergo any given medical procedure.
It is our right to decline vaccinations, not a government-granted privilege. The whole idea of an “exemption” from a statutory requirement to vaccinate is a perversion of law, not to mention medical ethics.
And if we argue that, in addition to the state’s very narrow allowance for “medical” exemptions, there ought to be a “religious” exemption, where does that leave parents whose decision not to vaccinate defies pediatrician recommendation and is grounded in knowledge of the medical literature and recognition of the need for an individualized risk-benefit analysis?
Out in the cold, is where.
It’s fine to argue that a mandate violates freedom of religion because it does, but that’s a good argument only as long as it doesn’t concede that the government has authority to impose mandates in the first place, which undermines our right to informed choice, which is not dependent on one having any religious beliefs but is a logical corollary of self-ownership.
Fighting for “exemptions” gives the government far too much. It gives them thousands of miles when we shouldn’t be surrendering an inch.
My opinion is that we should never concede in court, explicitly or tacitly, that a vaccine exemption is a government-granted privilege, as opposed to informed consent being our fundamental human right. We must never recognize the legitimacy of so-called “laws” that are fundamentally unjust and violate our rights.
We must never recognize that the government has any authority to impose such “laws” on us. Because it doesn’t.
In the underlying Wisconsin v Yoder case being relied on here for the win, SCOTUS held that “Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a state law requiring that children attend school past eighth grade violates the parents’ constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
But a law making it compulsory for children to undergo state indoctrination doesn’t just violate religious freedom; it violates our right as parents to determine our children’s education for ourselves, period.
We also shouldn’t be conceding that laws for compulsory “education” in the government school system are constitutional, except if someone belongs to some religion. There a no ifs. Our rights as parents to make health and education choices for our own children are absolute. And these are rights not government-allowed privileges.
Tactical wins can be strategic losses.
That is the risk of “working within the system to change the system” and trying to fight government tyranny in the government’s own court system.
In fact, we ought to stop even calling it a “government” as though we had a constitutional government. It’s a criminal organization that couldn’t care less about what the Constitution says and that we ought not be legitimizing.
I’m not saying these types of efforts shouldn’t occur, just that the bigger picture must be kept in mind, and any legal strategy ought to account for the risk posed by conceding authority and effectively consenting to certain abuses to defend against others.
What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below. I’m particularly interested in ideas for how we can engage in civil disobedience and work toward effective nullification, at least the local level, of federal and state so-called “laws”.
You are exactly right Jeremy.
During the germ terror psy op I lost employment because I wouldn’t take the spike protein injection. I could have claimed religious exemption and kept my job. But that entire proposition was and is ludicrous. I’m not taking a bioweapon injection because I don’t care to. Period. There is nothing else to talk about. Religion has nothing to do with anything. And as you rightly point out, what happens when our owners (not the puppet politicians, by the way) decide to declare religion itself illegal?
The society at large already accepted long ago that our owners can and will dictate what we do and don’t put into our bodies. This religious exemption shell game is just another means to keep the frogs fooled and pacified while their boiling continues apace.
Thank you for your comment. I applaud you for standing up for your rights even at the cost of your job.
Great points. I wish you could get on some venue like TheHighwire.com to discuss these issues with someone like Aaron Siri who has been doing their legal work.
I don’t much like the public spotlight, but I do what I have to to get the message out. I happen to have published this just yesterday about Siri’s testimony at Senator Ron Johnson’s September hearing on the corruption of science:
Scientific Data Show Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2025/12/08/scientific-data-show-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier/
Right on, Mr. Hammond. I have long been very underimpressed with calling these religious freedom victories wins, when vaccine choice should be honored for ANY reason.
Thank you for sharing your thought. I am glad we agree!
Hello Jeremy,
Your reasoning is sound and in keeping with John Locke’s views on the principles of natural law upon which our “gasping” republic was founded! In his masterful “Second Treatise on Government” (1690), Locke makes the case that the individual person, existing anterior to government in “a state of nature”, possesses certain natural rights and cannot be compelled to act against conscience. Otherwise, government is attempting to enslave that person, and is, in effect making war upon them. Here is Locke:
“Chap III, Sect. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.”
So, as you correctly argued, allowing the state to create “exceptions” to laws that violate one’s conscience, is not a victory for liberty. It is a defeat. As a Christian, I don’t want my liberties dependent on my “sincerely held religious convictions”, as was the decision in that case involving the baker who did not want to bake a cake for a homosexual couple. After being dragged through years of litigation and being bankrupted by legal fees, SCOTUS makes the obvious decision that that was all wrong…..but didn’t rule that it was wrong for ANYONE to be forced to go against their conscience! Just people with “sincerely held religious convictions”. And of course, the government gets to decide what is “sincere”! What if the baker had been an atheist whose moral compass opposed homosexuality? Same with abortion or any other contentious issue. I know that my rights as a Christian can only be secure when EVERYONE’S rights are secure, no matter what the state thinks! The government granting “exceptions” to laws that violate the principles of natural law, is a trap, from which, there is no escape from the mental “plantation” on which, the state wants us to remain. The founders were greatly influenced by these great thinkers of the past. There is a reason why the government indoctrination centers (AKA schools) do not teach about them, and encourage small vocabularies so as to make these great thinkers inscrutable!
Washington best defined government; “Government is not eloquence. It is not reason. It is force. And, like fire, it is both a fearful master and a dangerous servant.”
Thanks for all you do in defense of liberty and pursuit of the truth!
George “Brutus” Hill, Kingman AZ
Thanks, George! I appreciate the great John Locke quote. And I especially appreciate your personal perspective that “I know that my rights as a Christian can only be secure when EVERYONE’S rights are secure, no matter what the state thinks!”
I agree with a lot of this, especially the bigger-picture concern: every time these cases argue for “exemptions,” they implicitly accept the premise that the state has authority over our bodies unless we can beg for carve-outs. That framing is dangerous. It turns a fundamental right into a conditional privilege.
But one thing to keep in mind is why lawyers often argue this way, even when they personally agree with the self-ownership model.
1. Court strategy is constrained by precedent
Under current federal doctrine, bodily autonomy arguments unrelated to religion get almost no protection. Courts treat vaccine mandates through Jacobson, Zucht, and later cases that defer heavily to state “police power.” The only constitutional daylight left-however imperfect-is the Free Exercise Clause. That’s the only lane where SCOTUS has shown willingness to review mandates at all.
So lawyers often play the only card the courts give them. It’s not ideological-it’s tactical. If they walk into court and say “the state has no power to mandate medical treatment,” the case is dismissed in five minutes because that argument has no recognized legal foundation in current jurisprudence.
2. They don’t want to lose a case on a “pure freedom” argument and create bad precedent
If someone takes the full bodily-autonomy/self-ownership argument to a hostile court and loses, that loss becomes precedent that can hurt everyone. Sometimes attorneys intentionally avoid the broad argument because they think the court will issue a sweeping ruling that slams the door shut for years.
3. Religious-exemption cases are seen as “winnable”-not because they’re the most principled, but because they’re the least impossible
It’s the path of least resistance in an unfriendly legal landscape. Not ideal, but understandable from a litigation standpoint.
4. Some lawyers (especially movement lawyers) genuinely believe incrementalism is the only viable path
They think if they can pry open a small hole in the mandate first-religious exemptions-then they can expand later to medical autonomy. The risk, as you pointed out, is that these tactical wins can solidify the legitimacy of mandates themselves.
5. Funding incentives also shape litigation
Organizations tend to pursue cases that are:
fundable
relatable to donors
winnable in court
A “pure bodily autonomy” case is a very hard sell to courts and to funders. So legal nonprofits stick to the narrow lane because that’s where they get support.
On the alternatives hinted at:
You gesture toward what is basically local nullification and civil disobedience, which historically is how unjust laws have actually been defeated-not through federal courts.
Things like:
counties/school boards quietly refusing to enforce state mandates
sheriffs declining to participate in enforcement
local boards adopting “parent choice” resolutions
school districts recognizing medical autonomy regardless of the state line
communities creating parallel structures that ignore the overreach
Nothing violent-just non-cooperation, which has been extremely effective in many historical contexts (Prohibition, draft resistance, Real ID pushback, marijuana laws, etc.).
This approach doesn’t depend on SCOTUS granting or denying “exemptions.” It operates on the older American idea that the people and local communities are the final arbiters.
Bottom line
You’re right: religious-exemption litigation can achieve tactical wins while reinforcing a flawed underlying premise. But lawyers aren’t necessarily endorsing the premise-they’re trapped inside a system that only recognizes certain types of claims.
The real long-term solution may come from outside that system: local autonomy, mass non-compliance, and communities quietly nullifying unenforceable mandates.
Thanks for sharing this, Jeff. I appreciate ChatGPT’s concordant conclusion:
Lots of valid points, Jeff.
There is a wonderful series of podcasts, “Beyond civil disobedience”, by Bad Quaker (sorry I cannot find a link right now). Bad Quaker’s main point there is: you don’t fight the dragon according to his strength, you find the dragon according to his weakness. The Dragon is, of course, The State.
Frontal assaults, while they may be principled, is not how we’ll win. We will win by finding “The Dragon’s” weakness – and hitting there.
In this country, religion has traditionally been respected. This respect is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. You can call this The Dragon’s weakness. Insisting “bodily autonomy is my natural right” is a very principled approach, but taking this approach would be like a frontal attack on The Dragon. Meaning, an almost certain loss. “This is my religious liberty” might not be as principled, but this is way more winnable.
Vincent Davis, an attorney who wrote a book titled “How To Fight CPS And Win”, said (I quote from memory): “Do you want to be right, or do you want your kids back?” Now, what he says about winning a CPS case applies equally to winning the right not to vaccinate.
A terrible way to pose a question, I know. Makes me cringe. And yet: it’s our children’s well-being that’s at stake here (and, secondary, our own). You have a precious child, and you need to protect that precious child from an injection of poison. You use whatever tactic you can to protect that child. And if it’s taking the religious exemption – you grab that exemption with both hands.
I think a hybrid approach is possible, whereby lawyers can fight for religious exemptions and avoid facing the dragon head on but without conceding that the government has authority to impose mandates in the first place. As long as they tread carefully, I think it can be done, depending on the case.
I love your perspective on this, Jeremy. It broadened mine. Thank you.
Regarding your question: “I’m particularly interested in ideas for how we can engage in civil disobedience and work toward effective nullification, at least the local level, of federal and state so-called “laws”.”:
Have you heard of this approach? https://restoregrandjuryrights.org/ which may have been started by https://peacemakersheriff.org/ They are suggesting a simple and proven solution – Grand Jury Oversight, and support counties in creating their own.
I am part of this local group https://www.pennsylvaniafreestate.org/ – that assists PA counties in becoming de jure and setting up Assemblies (one of the original branches of government in the constitutional republic) and we are beginning to take the steps to form a Grand Jury Oversight Committee
Thanks, Christy. I don’t think I’ve come across those links before and will check them out!
In addition to what I said in a response to Jeff above, I think the core issue here is: do we ever compromise?
And I think the answer is, yes, we do. Sometimes we just have to.
In your article, Jeremy, you say: “We are not slaves but have self-ownership, and as such, we have a right to decide what goes into our bodies and our children’s bodies, and the right to decide for ourselves whether to undergo any given medical procedure.”
Let’s conduct a thought experiment here. Imagine we are actually enslaved. (It’s probably politically incorrect for a white person to imagine that, but I whatever… I’ll imagine that). Of course, we want slavery to be abolished! But, let’s say that the time for this idea has not come, yet. Imagine we live in the United States late 1700s, or very early 1900s. Or imagine we live anywhere in Europe, or in the world, back in the dark ages when slavery was just considered normal. Or in Russia before 1861, during the time of serfdom, which was, for all practical purposes, almost indistinguishable from slavery. Now imagine there is a decision of the court – or a decree of the King, of the Tsar, severely limiting the power the “owner” has over her slaves. Now, short of the complete abolition of slavery, wouldn’t that be a good thing?
It has been said, “nothing will stop an idea whose time has come”. But this can be turned around, meaning: nothing will advance an idea whose time has not come, yet.
I’m afraid the time of complete freedom, which includes bodily autonomy, has not come, yet. We do what we can to preserve that idea – for the future generations – and from the point of view of idea preservation, your article is extremely valuable. Let’s not forget our distant goal. But in the meantime, let’s take a win, incomplete as it is, and celebrate.
I agree that compromises are required as a simple matter of pragmatism, recognizing practical reality as opposed to our vision of a better world. I just caution against compromising too hastily or unnecessarily; and if a compromise really is necessary to protect ourselves in the immediate term, we ought not to lose sight of the longer term goal.
In this case, I agree we can celebrate the positive development for the Amish in NY, but let’s also remember their battle isn’t over yet as the legal battle will continue in the state’s court system, and I feel we need to keep in mind the perversity of having to get an “exemption” in the first place. I feel that sometimes people in the health freedom movement lose sight of the wider perspective.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago from a legal organization here in Michigan about the best legal strategy, and as a Christian she was convinced it’s all about the religious exemption. I shared my own opinion that this is too narrow a focus that leaves many parents (like myself) out in the cold and also risks consenting to mandates in the first place.
I pointed out that a decision not to vaccinate can be grounded not in religious belief but knowledge of the medical literature and recognition of the need for an individualized risk-benefit analysis, and that the legal strategy she outlined failed to take this into consideration, which could risk conceding in court that parents do not thave this right to make their own informed choice.
I think she took my comments to heart and will now continue her approach but while also keeping sight of the bigger picture. So, I am glad to have such opportunities to influence others’ thinking, even if we don’t completely agree on best approaches.