Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
The Connecticut Supreme Court issued an intermediate procedural decision in Spillane v. Lamont today, partially dismissing a state court challenge to Connecticut’s school vaccine requirements.
Spillane v. Lamont was brought forward by Attorneys Lindy Urso, Jim Mermigis, and Kevin Barry, along with LeAnn Ducat and Christina Martinez.
The plaintiffs in this case alleged that the elimination of the religious exemption violated the Connecticut and U.S. Constitutions and Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims under the Connecticut and U.S. Constitutions. However, on remand the Superior Court will review further the plaintiffs’ claims made pursuant to Connecticut’s RFRA.
"Our case has always centered around Connecticut's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and our firm belief that the removal of the religious exemption is in clear violation thereof," said Attorney Urso who believes the ancillary claims brought forth are valid under the state and federal constitutions.
"After the 2nd Circuit's ruling in the federal "We The Patriots" case brought unwisely by other parties, we anticipated losing those claims here in state court," said Attorney Urso. "But make no mistake, this decision is a victory for our plaintiffs and a victory for religious freedom in Connecticut and we look forward to pressing ahead with our Injunction motion so that we can get these disenfranchised children back to school while we await our trial."
Connecticut law requires students to receive certain immunizations before enrolling in school. Prior to 2021, students could apply for medical or religious exemptions to that requirement. However, P.A. 21-6 eliminated the religious exemption, while grandfathering students in kindergarten through grade twelve who had already received such exemptions.
"Vaccines save lives," claimed Connecticut Attorney General William Tong. "School vaccine requirements remain in effect, and we are very confident in our position."
Tong then promised to "aggressively defend the state’s necessary and lawful actions to protect public health” regarding the plaintiffs’ remaining claim made pursuant to Connecticut’s RFRA.
