## Facts

- California enacted SB 277, effective January 1, 2016, eliminating the “personal beliefs” exemption from required childhood immunizations for attendance at public and private schools and day care settings, while preserving medical exemptions and treating certain non-classroom education settings differently.
- Parents of school-age children who opposed vaccinating their children challenged SB 277, alleging vaccines were unsafe and that the law coerced unwanted medical procedures as a condition of school attendance.
- The parents alleged SB 277 violated: (1) free exercise/freedom of religion, (2) the California constitutional right to education, (3) equal protection due to assertedly irrational classifications and exemptions, (4) due process through unconstitutional vagueness, and (5) statutory protections against nonconsensual medical experimentation under the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act (Health & Safety Code § 24170 et seq., including § 24175(a)).
- State health officials demurred for failure to state a claim; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action.
- The parents appealed from the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether SB 277 violates free exercise or freedom of religion by conditioning school attendance on compliance with vaccination requirements without a personal-beliefs exemption.
2. Whether SB 277 unconstitutionally burdens the California constitutional right to education by excluding unvaccinated children from classroom-based schooling.
3. Whether SB 277 violates equal protection by drawing distinctions among groups such as medically exempt versus non-exempt students, classroom-based versus certain non-classroom students, and other statutory categories.
4. Whether SB 277 is unconstitutionally vague.
5. Whether SB 277 compels participation in “medical experimentation” in violation of Health & Safety Code § 24175(a).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal after demurrer without leave to amend.
- SB 277 was held not to violate free exercise/freedom of religion; the vaccination requirement was treated as a neutral, generally applicable public health measure, and no authority required a religious or personal-beliefs exemption.
- SB 277 was held not to violate the state constitutional right to education; conditioning classroom attendance on compliance with health and safety rules, including vaccination, was permissible, and alternative education options existed outside covered classroom settings.
- SB 277 was held not to violate equal protection; challenged distinctions either did not involve similarly situated groups or were rationally related to public health objectives, and rational basis review applied.
- SB 277 was held not void for vagueness because it gave fair notice of required conduct and the scope of its exemptions and exceptions.
- SB 277 was held not to violate the medical experimentation statute because routine, approved vaccinations required for school attendance are not “medical experiments” within the meaning of § 24175(a).

## Legal Principles

- School-entry immunization requirements are a permissible exercise of state authority to protect public health and may be enforced by excluding noncompliant students from covered school settings.
- Neutral, generally applicable public health laws that incidentally burden religious practice do not violate free exercise absent a legal requirement for exemptions.
- The California constitutional right to education is subject to reasonable health and safety regulation; exclusion for noncompliance with vaccination rules is not an unconstitutional denial of education where the regulation is reasonable and alternatives are available.
- Equal protection challenges to vaccination mandates and their exemption schemes generally receive rational basis review unless a suspect classification or a properly framed fundamental-right infringement triggers heightened scrutiny.
- A statute is not void for vagueness if it provides fair warning of what is required and does not force ordinary people to guess at its meaning.
- Statutory limits on human-subject medical experimentation do not apply to routine, nonexperimental vaccinations required as a condition of school attendance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld SB 277’s elimination of the personal-beliefs exemption for school vaccinations and rejected challenges based on religion, education rights, equal protection, vagueness, and the medical experimentation statute, affirming dismissal on demurrer without leave to amend.


Brown v. Smith, 24 Cal. App. 5th 1135, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218 (Ct. App. 2018)