PRESS RELEASE
May 21, 2026
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812-243-0825; Phone 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685; [email protected]

Friend of the Court Brief Filed Supporting Parents and Students Fighting West Virginia Board of Education's Religious Discrimination in Vaccine Law

West Virginia - Last week, in West Virginia's highest court, The Bopp Law Firm filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief on behalf of Stand for Health Freedom (“SHF”), a national nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting informed consent in health decision-making and the constitutional structure that safeguards those freedoms. The amicus brief was filed in support of the plaintiffs in Guzman v. West Virginia Board of Education, who had asked the trial court to require the West Virginia Board of Education (“Board”) to honor their religious exemptions from the state's Compulsory Vaccination Law.

The Board had refused to honor religious exemptions requested by the Plaintiffs, despite the fact that the West Virginia Department of Health—the state entity entrusted with safeguarding public health—had formally issued religious exemption certificates to them pursuant to Governor Patrick Morrisey's executive order, which Governor Morrisey issued to ensure that enforcement of the Compulsory Vaccine Law did not run afoul of state legislation protecting religious freedom.

That legislation, the West Virginia Equal Protection for Religious Act (“EPRA”), was the focus of SHF's amicus brief. The EPRA was modeled after the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence on religious liberty under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, SHF detailed in the amicus brief how First Amendment jurisprudence should inform the Guzman case.

One aspect of that jurisprudence, SHF explained, is particularly problematic for the Board. When the government prohibits certain religiously-motivated actions because they allegedly cause harm, but permits nonreligious actions that result in the same sort of harm, the First Amendment requires the government to provide an extraordinarily persuasive justification for its antireligious discrimination. The United States Supreme Court has been clear that the government can rarely overcome this hurdle.

That rule is critical in Guzman because the Board permits numerous nonreligious actions that result in even greater harm to public health than would result from honoring the small number of religious exemptions at issue. In fact, the relatively low number of religious exemptions at issue means that granting them would not risk harm to public health at all. Meanwhile, the Board permits the many adults who interact with students continuously, such as teachers and coaches, to do so with no vaccination whatsoever, without even having to give a reason for their non-vaccination. And it has allowed hundreds of students to simply ignore the Compulsory Vaccine Law for over 30 days.

As if that were not enough to demonstrate the Board's antireligious discrimination, the Board even plays an active role in the very harm it claims to have an interest in preventing—public schools continue to sponsor activities, such as sporting events, in which students visit surrounding states with no vaccine requirements, and to host activities in which unlimited members of the public, including those who are not vaccinated, are invited to school premises.

These activities expose students to far greater numbers of unvaccinated individuals than they would be exposed to if the Board honored to religious exemptions. As a result, explains the SHF amicus brief, it is plain that the Board must honor the plaintiffs' religious exemptions. Indeed, that result is even more plain under the EPRA, which is even more demanding against the government in circumstances of religious discrimination than the First Amendment itself.

James Bopp, Jr., of The Bopp Law Firm, PC, and counsel for SHF, said, “This case is an alarming example of the importance of maintaining uncompromising protection for religious liberty. The result of removing such protection would be catastrophic, leaving no checks against government agencies intent on requiring parents and their children to either forsake their religious beliefs or suffer the grave consequence of finding alternative educational and athletic opportunities, all while the very same government permits and even encourages nonreligious activity that causes even greater harm.”

“This case reaches far beyond West Virginia,” said Stand for Health Freedom Policy Director Valerie Ferrell. “The outcome will influence how courts and policymakers nationwide approach informed consent, parental rights, and religious liberty in health decision-making.

Read the amicus brief here.