The public will not know the identities of the University of Colorado medical staff and students who are challenging the institution’s vaccination policy, after a federal judge acknowledged a hostile climate exists toward people who choose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Eleven women and seven men have filed a lawsuit alleging the unconstitutionality of the religious exemption that CU’s Anschutz Medical Campus has enacted to its vaccine mandate. The anonymous plaintiffs have faith-based objections to the use of fetal cell lines used in the research and development of COVID-19 vaccines. However, the university allegedly denied each request for an exemption.

The plaintiffs then made an uncommon request to remain unidentified in the litigation, alleging a “top-down, cultural, societal, and legal assault currently underway against those who forgo receiving COVID vaccination, especially in the health care industry.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya agreed with them.

“There is no question that there exists in our nation a certain enmity from some persons in society against those persons who choose not to become vaccinated,” she wrote in a Jan. 5 order. “Plaintiffs’ Motion has presented evidence that supports their contention that choosing not to become vaccinated can stigmatize an individual as uncaring for the well-being of others, especially in light of the many mutations that have been identified thus far and the unknowns surrounding protection through vaccination if the virus is not definitively stopped from spreading.”

In October, U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore declined to take action against the CU Anschutz policy, noting that the plaintiffs’ complaint was based on a previous version of the religious exemption. Until the lawsuit was amended to address the current policy, Moore explained he was “not in the business of considering arguments that have not yet been made.”

The plaintiffs have appealed Moore’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Under the medical campus’s updated policy, employees – but not students – are eligible to cite their religious beliefs to avoid compliance with the mandate to be fully vaccinated. The school will not grant the exemption if it would substantially burden the health or safety of others on campus, including patients.

Failure to get vaccinated or qualify for an exemption could lead to termination.

One doctor in the pediatric intensive care unit at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs – which is affiliated with CU’s medical school – applied for an exemption because, she stated, “As a faithful Catholic, I uphold the dignity and sanctity of every human life and firmly oppose abortion and the evil involved in the use of cell lines derived from abortions.” CU denied her request, pointing to her work with sick children who were unable at the time to be vaccinated themselves.

The university opposed the request for anonymity, arguing that using pseudonyms in lawsuits is typically reserved for cases that are “highly sensitive and personal” or where there is a real danger of physical harm.

“And there are no reports of any of those plaintiffs being attacked or placed in danger,” wrote the attorney general’s office, which is representing CU.

In response, the plaintiffs pointed to commentary from media commentators, late-night television hosts and even President Joe Biden that directed gallows humor or outright expressions of hostility toward the unvaccinated.

“I, for one, have had it up to here with the shrieking anti-vaccine maniacs who are doing their level best to put more children in intensive care,” wrote Ryan Cooper in The Week magazine. “They should be exiled from society until they get their shots, and their efforts to intimidate people against controlling the pandemic should be met with massive resistance.”

Tafoya explained in her order that granting a plaintiff anonymity because of their unvaccinated status would normally not be considered sensitive or personal, “absent the current political climate.” In this instance, she acknowledged, rhetoric on “both sides of the vaccine mandate controversy are often vitriolic and personal.”

Furthermore, the plaintiffs had already alleged consequences from their refusal to get vaccinated, namely being placed on unpaid leave or terminated after asserting their religious liberties.

The magistrate judge ultimately decided that the public benefit in knowing the identity of individual plaintiffs was minimal, and that the university already knows who the unnamed students and staff are.

“The public has a very significant interest in the constitutionality of the policies of its public institutions. But, it is the policy itself and its execution at the University’s Anschutz campus that is on trial, not the individual Plaintiffs who are asserting the constitutional violations,” Tafoya wrote.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of cases challenging the Biden administration’s vaccination and testing requirements for larger employers and approximately 10.3 million healthcare workers. At the same time, the United States recorded approximately one million COVID-19 infections in a single day earlier this week as the highly-contagious omicron variant continues to surge through the population.

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