Connecticut lawmakers are attempting to thumb the scales in a lawsuit filed against Gov. Ned Lamont and the commissioners of the Department of Health and the Department of Education over the state’s elimination of the religious exemption for school vaccination requirements; a lawsuit that, thus far, does not appear to be going in the state’s favor.
In 2022, Kiera Spillane and two other families filed a lawsuit against Lamont, Commissioner Manisha Juthani, and Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker, alleging the 2021 law that removes parents’ ability to claim a religious exemption to school vaccination requirements violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), a law passed by the State of Connecticut and Congress in 1993, which prohibits any government from substantially burdening and individual’s right to exercise their religion.
Spillane claims that under Connecticut’s 2021 law, her two children will essentially be treated differently – her eldest will be grandfathered into the school system under the state’s former religious exemption, but her youngest will be required to receive the vaccines to attend school.
“Mandating that Plaintiffs inoculate their children with vaccines is an unreasonable and permanent interference with Plaintiffs’ religious practice because the inoculation cannot be undone and permanently alters the immune system,” the plaintiffs wrote in their 2025 amended complaint. “Plaintiffs believe that permanently altering their children’s immune systems is an extraordinarily intrusive burden on their free exercise of religion.” [Bold and italics included in the court filing]
Although lawsuits at both the state and federal levels that have challenged Connecticut’s vaccine changes have ultimately failed in the past, the state appears to be struggling in Spillane’s case.
The state’s motion to dismiss the case was denied, as were the state’s various motions to strike and the state’s motion to lift the stay of execution for the law pending its appeal. Under the FRFA, the government must use the least restrictive means to achieve a goal when there are compelling public interests at stake, and, thus far, the plaintiffs have successfully argued that passing the 2021 legislation was not the least restrictive means, thus allowing the case to continue through the legal process.
However, under a provision contained in a bill introduced this session, lawmakers would essentially thumb the scales in favor of the state in the middle of the judicial process.
Senate Bill 450, which gives the commissioner of the Department of Health greater control over Connecticut’s vaccine standards, states that enforcement of Connecticut’s vaccine requirements “shall not be construed as a violation” of Connecticut’s RFRA and applies to “any civil action pending on or filed after” passage of the bill.
The bill was passed out of committee on March 18 with a 21-11 vote along party lines, following a March 11 marathon public hearing that received thousands of pieces of written testimony, hundreds of people testifying in person, and public testimony cut-off at midnight.
The provision has been highlighted by General Assembly Republicans and those opposed to both the original revocation of the state’s religious exemption, as well as those opposed to expanding the powers of the DPH commissioner to set vaccine standards that may differ from that of the federal government.
“The fact that this language is being offered – and will apply to – pending litigation on this very issue is a blatant attempt to tip the scales in favor of the government,” House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, wrote in testimony. “Section 15 of Senate Bill 450 adds insult to injury in that it not only explicitly allows the government to enforce vaccine mandates on individuals despite their religious beliefs but also does so in order to kill a pending court case that would decide whether the government’s action violated the state’s RFRA.”
Lindy Urso, attorney for the parents, also submitted testimony stating, “it appears the state defendants are losing confidence in their ability to justify removal of the religious exemption.”
“It is a cowardly affront to Religious Freedom in the state that was the very first in the nation to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” Urso wrote.
Following a press conference on March 23 in which Attorney General William Tong advocated for a new law allowing Connecticut residents to sue federal officers for civil rights violations, Tong said he couldn’t comment on how the vaccine legislation would impact the Spillane case his office is currently defending.
In written testimony, however, Cara Passero, chief of staff for the Office of the Attorney General, stated that Connecticut’s 2021 removal of the religious exemption was constitutional.
Both state and federal courts have heard challenges to the school vaccination requirements under the Connecticut and Federal Constitutions. None have succeeded,” Passero wrote. “In 2021, the legislature voted to phase out the religious exemption to the school immunization requirements. The intent of the legislature was clear then and the result is clear today: childhood vaccination rates have increased; kids and communities are safer and healthier.”
But it also wouldn’t be the first time in recent years lawmakers have sought to tip the scales in pending court litigation through passing bills that would directly affect those proceedings.
During the 2025 session, unknown lawmakers inserted language into an omnibus energy bill that would have gotten former Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Chairman Marissa Gillett off the legal hook for years of statutory violations in how she administered PURA proceedings, which were, at the time, the subject of two major lawsuits by Connecticut’s energy companies. The language was stripped out following Inside Investigator’s reporting.
Similarly, language inserted into the 2023 state budget at the last minute – known as a rat – ultimately determined the outcome of a pitched zoning battle in Middlebury over the proposed construction of a massive distribution center. The lawsuit against the town ultimately prevailed in stopping the distribution center because of the new law.
“When a legislature begins rewriting laws during active constitutional litigation to shield the state from legal consequences, the legislature ceases to function as a representative body and instead becomes an instrument of institutional self-preservation,” wrote Kate Prokop, president of Connecticut Residents Against Medical Mandates (CTRAMM). “That is a profoundly dangerous precedent.”
The majority of SB 450 deals with allowing the DPH commissioner to “consider other recommended vaccine schedules” in response to changes implemented under President Donald Trump’s administration, and “allows the commissioner of DPH to establish an immunization standard of care for adults,” according to the joint favorable report.
Reached for comment, Public Health Committee co-chair Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D-Fairfield, said Connecticut’s high vaccination rate protects public health; “The goal of this bill is to maintain access, choice, and coverage of vaccines for all Connecticut residents who want and need one.”
“The changes to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act mean that Connecticut will retain the status quo, reaffirming the decision the legislature made in 2021 regarding religious exemptions to vaccines,” McCarthy Vahey said. “There’s a reason we were the last state in the country to have a measles outbreak, and then contained that outbreak immediately.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
