A Connecticut Superior Court judge has dismissed the remaining claim against the state’s repeal of religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements, closing a four-year lawsuit and leaving the current admissions rules in force.
Judge Trial Referee Edward Krumeich II granted the state’s motion in Spillane v. Lamont. The dismissal order ends the plaintiffs’ final claim under Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The families had argued that eliminating the exemption unlawfully burdened their religious exercise.
The dispute began after Connecticut enacted Public Act 21-6 in 2021, ending new religious exemptions while preserving limited grandfathering for some students who already held them. In 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the families’ constitutional claims but returned the RFRA issue to Superior Court for further proceedings.
The legal landscape changed again this spring. Lawmakers passed House Bill 5044, which amended state religious-freedom law to make clear that it does not apply to school immunization requirements. Governor Ned Lamont signed the measure in April. Reporting on the legislative debate documented an 89-60 House vote and sharp disagreement over whether the amendment was a clarification of the 2021 policy or an improper intervention in pending litigation.
The state relied on that amendment in seeking dismissal. As detailed in CT Mirror’s account, Attorney General William Tong said the decision affirmed that Connecticut’s school vaccine rules are lawful. Lindy Urso, counsel for the families, criticized the legislature for changing the governing statute while the case was underway.
For schools and parents, the immediate consequence is continuity. Connecticut continues to require covered students to meet school immunization rules unless they qualify for a medical exemption or fall within the law’s limited grandfather provisions. The ruling does not create a new mandate or alter individual vaccine schedules; it removes the remaining state-court challenge seeking to revive a religious exemption.
Connecticut is among a small group of states without a religious school-immunization exemption. A current state-law comparison from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that medical exemptions exist nationwide while nonmedical exemptions vary.
The decision may still prompt procedural motions or an appeal, but no automatic change follows from a party seeking further review. Unless a higher court grants relief, districts can continue applying the existing statute as the new school year proceeds. The case also illustrates how legislation enacted during active litigation can reshape the claim a court is asked to decide, a point that remained politically contested even as the judge dismissed it.
The ruling is narrower than a general judgment on every religious-liberty dispute involving vaccination. It resolves the remaining claim under Connecticut law in this case, after the state statute was amended. Separate challenges based on different facts, federal statutes or constitutional theories would have to satisfy their own procedural and substantive requirements.
