A federal judge has declined to block the University of Colorado from enforcing its vaccination policy against a Roman Catholic physician and a Buddhist medical student who unsuccessfully sought religious exemptions, while cautioning that a recent revision to the mandate may bring about new arguments in the case. 

The plaintiffs, identified as Jane Doe, M.D. of Children’s Hospital in Colorado Springs and first-year student John Doe, sued CU on Sept. 29 for its vaccination policy adopted on Sept. 1. According to the school’s regulations, faculty, staff and students at the Anschutz Medical Campus who interacted with other employees, patients or the public were required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. They were to report their vaccination documentation through an online portal.

The policy did, however, make an exception for those whose religious teachings were “opposed to all immunizations.” That language formed the basis of the legal challenge.

“It explicitly singles out those who are religiously opposed to all vaccinations and grants them favored treatment, while it categorically rejects requests for religious exemptions by anyone whose religious beliefs deign to approve some (even non-abortion-connected) vaccines,” wrote Peter Breen in a letter to CU. Breen is the vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society, a law firm that advocates for Judeo-Christian causes.

The letter referred to the fact that the COVID-19 vaccines were developed using fetal cell lines grown in a laboratory, which Jane Doe cited as the basis for her opposition. John Doe also pointed to the fetal cell lines in his request for an exemption, despite the school’s directive that he “cite to the official doctrine of an organized religion, in this case, Buddhism, as announced by the leaders of that religion.”

The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore to issue a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order blocking CU Anschutz from enforcing the religious exemption policy as written. They argued the policy violated their religious rights under the First Amendment as well as the Equal Protection Clause, and claimed that in the absence of a court order, Jane Doe would lose her job and John Doe would be forced to reapply to other medical schools and “forgo his dream of becoming a physician.”

The university saw no merit to their concerns, pointing to a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld compulsory vaccination laws on public health grounds.

“With barely a mention of the magnitude of the COVID crisis and the risk their refusal to be vaccinated presents to the most vulnerable – in Plaintiff Jane Doe’s case, young patients in the pediatric intensive care unit who cannot be vaccinated and are in the midst of medical crises – Plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted not to get vaccinated because of their religious beliefs,” wrote Hermine Kallman, attorney for CU. “This is despite the fact that they admit they have received other vaccinations in the past and that they practice (or aspire to practice) medicine that has been developed, in large part, relying on the very same processes and cell lines they find objectionable now.”

Kallman indicated that CU Anschutz had actually replaced its original vaccine policy days before the plaintiffs filed suit. Now, the school allows for exemptions for sincerely held religious beliefs, but not if it results in an unreasonable burden to the health and safety of others.

The plaintiffs shot back that a preliminary injunction was still necessary, and accused the university of continuing an “illegal and unconstitutional Inquisition.”

On Monday, Moore denied the plaintiffs’ request, agreeing there was no indication CU Anschutz would reinstate the original Sept. 1 policy. He also took note of the plaintiffs’ promise that they would amend their original complaint and seek an injunction against the new policy.

“But the Court is not in the business of considering arguments that have not yet been made,” Moore responded. 

As vaccine mandates have gained traction, a small fraction of the workforce has chosen to lose their jobs rather than submit to workplace protocols. Earlier this month, UCHealth fired 0.5% of its Colorado workforce – 119 employees – for failing to get vaccinated. An additional 1,170 employees received medical and religious exemptions.

Police departments in particular have emerged as a source of resistance to workplace mandates. This week, New York City’s largest police union sued as a Nov. 1 deadline approaches, while roughly one-third of Chicago’s officers have refused to comply with the mayor’s directive. 

The same day Moore issued his order, The Denver Post reported that Eric France, Colorado’s chief medical officer, suggested that “we have to really work harder to have businesses require masks or ask restaurant owners to ask for proof of vaccination” to combat rising hospital admissions from COVID-19.

The university is also opposing Jane Doe and John Doe’s request to proceed anonymously in the lawsuit, rejecting the argument that the plaintiffs would be placed in danger by revealing their identities.

The case is Doe et al. v. University of Colorado et al.