D.C. Fed Soc Judge Nixes Teen's right to vaccine w/o parental consent

In Booth v. Bowser Trevor N. McFadden, a long time Federalist Society member and Trump-era federal District Judge has enjoined a D.C. law that says a minor can get a vaccine without parental consent.

The law was passed before the covid pandemic “so that the District can move towards a high enough immunization rate to achieve herd immunity—or 95% immunity—from diseases such as measles.” But relying on the emerging doctrine that no burdens on religious belief - no matter how contrary to the public interest - will be tolerated the judge turns to last year's "Fulton [v. Philadelphia] , 141 S. Ct. at 1877 saying “A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government’s asserted interests in a similar way.” In that case the Court found Philadelphia must allow a conscience exemption in the Court majority's emerging, if not well articulated, doctrine favoring religious conscience claims of all kinds against public health measures.

McFadden finds that the D.C. law targets parents with religious scruples about vaccination, and that it preempts the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act  which provide that Vaccine Information Sheet must be given to any "legal representative".  By affirming the autonomy of a minor, in McFadden's view, the D.C. law conflicts with federal law and must yield:

In late 2020, the D.C. Council approved a law allowing children as young as eleven to get vaccinated without parental consent or knowledge. Parents who object to childhood vaccinations filed complaints and sought preliminary injunctions in two separate cases, but they bring nearly identical claims. They argue that federal law preempts the District’s law and that it violates their constitutional and statutory rights. The District opposes the imposition of preliminary injunctions and moves to dismiss. It argues that the parents lack standing, that they have not justified preliminary injunctive relief, and that they failed to state a claim. The Court holds that all the parents have standing for their preemption claims and have shown a likelihood of success on the merits for those claims.