>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“The Amish community in New York wants to be left alone to live out their faith just like they have for 200 years,” Shackelford said. “The Amish take their faith very seriously and are simply asking the State of New York to respect their sincerely held beliefs.”
This decision follows a recent parental-rights ruling, Mahmoud v. Taylor, which addressed objections to mandatory LGBTQ diversity curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Supreme Court has directed the appeals court to evaluate the New York vaccine case in light of that precedent.
The justices offered no detailed explanation for why the 2nd Circuit’s ruling conflicted with the parental-rights decision. The prior appellate ruling had claimed New York’s vaccination rules were neutral and showed no anti-religious bias.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the 6-3 majority, emphasized that “public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot ’condition’ its ’availability’ on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise.”
The Supreme Court had recently declined to hear a similar challenge from California, where a mother sought recognition of religious objections to vaccines. Like New York, California permits medical exemptions but removed religious and personal belief exemptions in 2016.
Separately, the Court appears poised to deliver a historic ruling on executive power that could reshape federal agencies’ authority. The case, Trump v. Slaughter, challenges longstanding precedent that shields independent agency leaders from presidential removal.
During Monday’s oral arguments, several justices questioned whether the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which created the modern “independent agency” framework, is constitutional.
The case arose after President Donald Trump removed a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. A ruling in Trump’s favor could dismantle what conservatives call the “fourth branch of government”—powerful agencies insulated from direct voter and presidential control.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a vocal critic of administrative overreach, noted, “Maybe it’s a recognition that Humphrey’s Executor was poorly reasoned and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government.”
His comments reflect a growing consensus among the Court’s conservative justices that the precedent conflicts with Article II of the Constitution, which vests “all executive power” in the president.
Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who submitted an amicus brief supporting Trump, said Humphrey’s Executor “destroys democratic accountability by creating agencies the President cannot control.”
Legal scholars have long described the 1935 ruling as a cornerstone of the administrative state, enabling Congress to build agencies that blend legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Modern interpretations, however, have largely abandoned the old “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” justifications.
The Supreme Court’s twin focus—reinforcing parental rights in New York and reconsidering presidential authority over federal agencies—signals that major shifts in both civil liberties and executive power may be imminent.
