Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom, et al. v. Dr. Matthew Christiansen, et al.
Date: 01-03-2025
Case Number: 23-CV-158
Judge: John Preston Bailey
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Ohio County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Christopher David Wiest
Defendant's Attorney: Jonathan Zak Richie
The Plaintiffs herein seek appellate relief from an abstention ruling made against
them in August 2023 in the Northern District of West Virginia. See W. Va. Parents for
Religious Freedom v. Christiansen, 685 F. Supp. 3d 371 (N.D.W.Va. 2023) (the
"Abstention Rulingâ€). By their Complaint, the Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Dr. Matthew Christiansen, the State Health
Officer and Commissioner of the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health (the
"Commissionerâ€). The Complaint alleges a single First Amendment claim, i.e., that West
Virginia's mandatory vaccination requirement for children — section 16-3-4 of the West
Virginia Code (the "Vaccination Mandateâ€) — is unconstitutional under the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment.
In its Abstention Ruling, the district court applied the so-called Pullman abstention
doctrine and did not resolve the Free Exercise claim alleged in the Complaint. See R.R.
Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). As our colleague Judge Niemeyer
recognized recently in Sonda v. W. Va. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, the Pullman
abstention doctrine is described thusly:
[T]he Pullman exception may be applied when there is (1) an unclear issue
of state law presented for decision (2) the resolution of which may moot or
present in a different posture the federal constitutional issues such that the
state law issue is potentially dispositive
Pursuant to West Virginia law, the public school attendance of all children in the
State aged six to seventeen is mandated, with exceptions for private schooling, parochial
schooling, learning pods, microschooling, and home schooling. See W. Va. Code §§ 18-
8-1–1a. In order for the State's children to attend a public, private, or parochial school,
however, their parents are obliged to comply with the Vaccination Mandate. Pursuant
thereto, those children are required to be immunized against "chickenpox, hepatitis-b,
measles, meningitis, mumps, diphtheria, polio, rubella, tetanus, and whooping cough.†See
W. Va. Code § 16-3-4(b
Pursuant to the foregoing, we vacate the Abstention Ruling and remand for such
other and further proceedings as may be appropriate.
About This Case
What was the outcome of West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom, et al. v. Dr...?
The outcome was: Pursuant to the foregoing, we vacate the Abstention Ruling and remand for such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate.
Which court heard West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom, et al. v. Dr...?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Ohio County), WV. The presiding judge was John Preston Bailey.
Who were the attorneys in West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom, et al. v. Dr...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Christopher David Wiest. Defendant's attorney: Jonathan Zak Richie.
When was West Virginia Parents for Religious Freedom, et al. v. Dr... decided?
This case was decided on January 3, 2025.