West Virginia Judge Affirms Religious Exemptions to School Vaccine Mandates

A significant decision out of West Virginia is reshaping the national conversation around parental rights, religious liberty, and vaccine mandate policy. On November 26, 2025, Michael Froble, Circuit Judge for Raleigh County, issued a permanent injunction ordering that families with sincere religious objections must be permitted to waive school-mandated vaccinations for their children. That includes full access to public school and participation in extracurricular activities. This is based on ICAN’s legal win back in July against West Virginia’s Board of Education when the court granted a preliminary injunction ensuring the children involved in the lawsuit could attend school without interruption while the case proceeded on the merits.

This ruling affirms a basic principle: agencies cannot ignore the law or sidestep protections that exist to safeguard families’ rights.

The Ruling

Judge Froble ruled that West Virginia’s policy refusing religious exemptions violated the state’s Equal Protection for Religion Act (EPRA), passed in 2023. Under EPRA, no state action may burden a person’s religious exercise unless it is essential and is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

Despite this, the state Board of Education instructed schools earlier this year to disregard the governor’s executive order allowing religious exemptions and continue enforcing longstanding mandates with no accommodation. Parents challenged that move and the court agreed.

Key findings include:

• Religious exemptions are protected under state law.

• Agencies cannot deny those exemptions simply because the Legislature failed to pass a similar bill earlier this session.

• Legislative “intent” does not override the plain language of a statute.

• Denying exemptions to families who qualify under the law is impermissible.

The order now applies statewide. More than 570 families who previously secured religious exemptions are protected, and all future families who seek exemptions under the Act are included as well.

Judge Froble also noted that the number of families requesting exemptions represents a very small portion of the state’s student population and would not significantly alter vaccination rates or heighten health risks.

Why This Matters

West Virginia, historically one of the strictest states in the nation, has been compelled to recognize that civil rights do not disappear in the realm of public health mandates. Governor Patrick Morrisey called the ruling “a win for every family forced from school over their faith.”

This case reinforces a critical point: constitutional and statutory protections apply even in areas where policy has long been considered untouchable.

Implications for California

California stands in stark contrast. Religious and personal belief exemptions have been eliminated since 2015 (SB277), and medical exemptions have been narrowed to the point that only about 0.1% of students qualify since 2019 (SB 276, SB 714). Families with legitimate concerns, religious, ethical, or medical, are now left without meaningful options.

The West Virginia ruling demonstrates that states with strict mandates can, and sometimes must, incorporate balanced protections that respect individual rights. It also underscores the limits of agency authority: policies cannot contradict established law or erode fundamental liberties.

For California, this case serves as a timely reminder that:

• Informed consent must remain central in public health policy.

• Parents are entitled to fair, accessible pathways for exemptions.

• Agency overreach is neither inevitable nor permissible.

• Civil rights protections apply to vaccination policy just as they do in every other area of law.

Where Informed Policy Advocates Stands

Informed Policy Advocates is committed to advancing transparency, informed consent, and consumer protections in California. Our work focuses on reinstating accessible exemptions, ensuring parents can make individualized healthcare decisions, and restoring balance in a system where discretion has been replaced by rigidity.

This ruling strengthens the case for renewed policy discussions in California. It shows that protective frameworks are legally sound, operationally manageable, and consistent with foundational rights.

We will continue monitoring developments in West Virginia and across the country as we push California toward policies that respect informed consent, uphold civil rights, and reflect the needs of the families we serve.