that colored the rest of the opinion this case is not about mandatory vaccination requirements the state of michigan has determined that parents have the right to a religious waiver it's not a constitutional requirement and that is not in dispute this case is about whether the government can instruct people in their own religious beliefs with the idea that to change those religious beliefs to comply with the state's purpose another way is to clarify which is what i think the government turned intended you have but you have a right just to say i don't want to vaccination for my child period were your client chose to talk about religion and doesn't speak at that point have a right or to say you know for example or your christian science you could say you that's not at all the situation here is my client has no right to not vaccinate her children if she wants to receive the public benefits like public school in this case the constitution has stated that parent i'm sorry the supreme court has question so the answer isn't that's not our case it's what's the answer to this is hypo the answer to your hypothetical is no the state has no will no authority no right and cannot under the establishment clause tell an individual what will or will not affect their membership in their church that is a matter for their priest and their pastor that it's not a matter for the government and and i think the facts in this case demonstrate exactly why because in this case the state documents that they that were presented to mrs nicoll out here contained a statement that was mis attributed to the pope that called her real per personal religious vaccinations so that that's exactly the problem here is that this isn't this isn't about me and a tree vaccinations this is about religious instruction and how far a state government can go in instructing citizens in religion and especially in this doesn't on that basis the state have some right to ask or the religious belief in in some courts in some circuits where the statutes allow for our require a sincere religious conviction the courts have delved not into the substance of the religious beliefs but into the sincerity of their religious beliefs but that's not at all what happens here and michigan michigan law has a mandate that parent if they assert in writing that they have a religious objection they shall receive that objection and and furthermore they will the state can potentially require enquire into the sincerity of beliefs a state cannot tell an individual that her religious beliefs are wrong and that's what's happened here and the district court below held that because there is no constitutional right to a vaccination exemption basically that the constitutional provisions don't apply to the statutory right michigan created but that would then mean that michigan could only allow exemptions for people who are born in the united states and naturalized citizens wouldn't be allowed that exemption were not going to give driver's license licenses to works exactly and especially when you consider that the federal constitution if we're looking at federal constitutional rights that enumerates the powers of the federal government the state i mean the powers reserved to the state are broad and not mandated in the constitution it's reserved to everything not in the constitution is reserved to the states so this would also expand it to any discretionary function of the state such as higher education there is no constitutional right to higher education but that doesn't not mean that when a state chooses to exercise that discretion that discretion that it can do so in an unconstitutional manner because through the fourteenth amendment the first amendment does apply  form that can trains i mean i mean it's full of religious interprete which which defendant and you have several layers which defendant put the form on the website is responsible for we would like to find  a few days after that there's a time gap in the wayback machine where you can look at the dates of the website but shortly after the complaint was filed that document disappeared from the michigan department of health and human services or you want an injunction not to sort of haran other the other ones which part of the lemon test you say violates the establishment clause we believe that every prong of the of the lemon test is violated ok i mean the secular purpose here is not to further religion but the secular purpose here is to encourage parents to vaccinate their kids it's a health purposes so i don't see a violation there in this court's decision in ashbrook there with a judge post the ten commandments and well principles in the ten commandments such as thou shall not kill are perfectly legitimate do you really think that you think that this this thing is religious based that the legislature by requiring educational information to give to parents who object to vaccination that really is religious it's a religious purpose that the michigan legislature was furthering the religion prove very dubious that the reason they have this former judge griffin says is because they have it out for religion it seems much more likely that they just want people to get back i don't know why the department of health would have religion i mean a preference is really  if they do i don't know which one they're in their means or you know one thing but the purpose seems just get you know people but the means in the context the purpose of using a papal statement even if it were a true papal statement is to encourage individuals to comply with the pope's statement and so well that's the main eight vaccinating children and health and safety are perfectly legitimate purposes if they go about it in saying and discussing potential risks risks to vaccinations or a risk for not vaccinating your children that's a legitimate purpose but here just as thou shall not see the purpose is to persuade them of the value of vaccinations and i'm sure they have i mean you say the state wasn't by the pope it was somebody else in the vatican but i'm sure they have statements of scientists noted doctors and everybody else that say vaccination is good we encourage to do and they also throw in the religious leaders to show that the overwhelming support is for vaccination so that the purpose isn't to encourage somebody to go with the pope's view the purpose is to encourage the view that vaccinations are good thing and the pope is just thrown in there with everybody i mean that's what it looks like to me but the state cannot set forth religious authorities as figures so you get past the first problem of how to get past the other one the second prong is whether it inhibits or advances religion and in this case the government setting forth the favorable view that that certain religious nuanced nuanced position of the catholic church that in no way condemns parents who do not choose not to vaccinate their children so it's advancing  division in catholic parents teachings and catholic parents religious beliefs that the church does not have a definitive stance on and saying this is the position the state is getting behind the position that using vaccinations derived from aborted beatles health is the right way to go and parents those who choose not to use who believe based on sound catholic doctrine that using vaccines derived from aborted catholic fetal cells is a sin the church doesn't agree with you that you are wrong the state doesn't agree with you the church doesn't agree with you in the time that you have about to ask your question are you free exercise claim is special disability is the supreme court use that term smith is that a term of art or what does that mean in your view what's the legal definition the legal definition of special please the court during fowler from the michigan attorney general's office on behalf of the apple we make why and i'll be utilizing thirteen minutes of the response time mr stella for the wayne county defendants will be using the other two i given my visual the facial challenge unofficial challenge of the administrative rule that the d h h s on the administrative rule really does and certainly doesn't spell out any of the conduct that they're i'm playing about here right not at all it simply advises that the folks the parents who want to get exemptions be it for religious reasons well other reasons need to appear before the local health department and attend one of these educational sessions and the rule says to learn about the risks of not being vaccinated the benefits of being vaccinated on the individual and community level you think that the nurses kind of went rogue and all this religious sort of advocacy that they were trying to do allegedly i think that the conduct of the nurses as alleged in the complaint is probably a little bit more aggressive or inconsistent with what is actually spelled out in the note to the local health workers that is included is exhibit b and really is you know what players counts was addressing in her statement if you look at the first page of that note there are bullet points at the top and the third bullet point talks about people have the choice to have their own religious beliefs and make their own health care choices the fourth bullet point emphasizes that the key to the conversation with parents is respecting the religious beliefs so as the process was designed and promulgated in this know that yes it has been removed from the website it's not out there anymore because a concern was raised with it but the no itself did not structure a conversation that was going to impede upon the religious scope of what you're know or whatever that document specifies as to what the parent should be told in one of these educational sessions is that is that accurate do you think i don't disagree with that ok it judge sir henry i think raised an interesting point in that at some point the plaintiff also chose to engage in have an ongoing discussion and could have simply articulated you know what i'm not going to talk about religion at all i'm entitled to an exemption for any reason in the world so give it to me and i'm out the door so there is some dialogue that happens and you know we can only read between the lines of the complaint and obviously we have to accept it is true here but the note which is what happened here the exemption was not for religious reasons but for the catch all for the exemption was simply the exemption there is no difference between an exemption that is for religious purposes versus one that is for other provoke a i thought they were arguing that they got the exemption but for the wrong reason or something the complaint alleges it that way but that is why both parties presented to the district judge part of the briefing at the district court level the actual exemption form itself as an document that has been described in pleadings being considered within twelve the motion attendant to it the actual one here the actual form attached to the district court briefing it indicates that the mom is being granted the exemption health worker has written in mom wants our child to have natural immunity i believe in silence phrased the way the complete reads it suggested that there may be like a separate form for the religious person people seeking it for religious reasons or maybe that there were different boxes on the form that needed to be checked checked religious reasons the form is not set up that way the worker the health worker gave the exemption health worker own mom wants child to have natural immunity which in and of itself is that the reason that this particular mother wants does not want the vaccination is that in her religious views in the eyes of god that this kind of unnatural substance should not be entering the body so yes so it's consistent with the religion religious objection even though it ok right which and because this exemption was granted gives rise to the argument that there is no standing here conduct here was a substantial burden on her ability to really acts to exercise her religion then that itself would be a legal injury i mean it it kind of depends on the merits in this case but there is also the judge the line of case law applying to the vaccination vaccination situations recognizing that this is you know there's an important public health interest here words have not recognized free exercise and establishment clause challenges to the vaccination process they have not allowed well that's but that's you know that's a different claim then what they're making here i mean that sounds like a claim where the state doesn't allow them at all and somebody wants to break through that here it is the state is allowing object religious objections or objection generally but the plaintiffs claim the state it has singled out this or this plaintiff for her discriminatory treatment based on her religion so it be like there is no constitutional right to a driver's license but that doesn't mean you can deny it to a certain group of catholic leaders it's kind of that's kind of what we have here even viewing it that way though there is a separate point there can be gleaned from the united states supreme court's recent every claim and every request for relief in a complete mr feiler are the standards of standard of standing different for a free exercise claim and an establishment claim i mean i would agree with you for free or chilling is not enough part of the i think it would be an overstatement to say that the establishment clause case law doesn't have this requirement there is a line of cases that plants have certainly highlighted ashbrook and so forth that involve public displays there's you know another line of case law involving legislative speech where yes there is a certain kind of latitude or special device for standing that  have been crafted but here i want to return to valley forge justice rehnquist has in more thorough discussion of standing after the portion we quoted in our brief he emphasizes  has a paragraph it's company one that says we don't mince words when we say that standing is a complicated doctrine that has you know you can explain it in a sentence or paragraph a lot of special kinds of decisions have been crafted for different circumstances rehnquist goes on later in the opinion to say and i quote the the standing requirement focuses on the party  or so as applied to this case the particular question here is what is the impact on the plaintiffs not the fact that an establishment clause or free exercise clause is maybe on the table here this particular plaintive had a conversation that she was uncomfortable with yes but at the end of the day this plaintive got the exemption she walked in that door to get but it does seem odd i mean let's say i mean it seems like she was subjected to a harangue here and it is pretty offensive just you know in a colloquial sense when you read at least how aggressive the nurses allegedly were and sort of how  officious they seemed to be in a complaint but i mean so it would be strange if that very same conduct is not violative of anything here because  this plaintiff did not yield to it but say somebody who comes in a week later subjected to the very same conduct and caves and says ok you know what i find that means they just can't take the pressure they feel this this pressure from these people and they abandon the thing and they go get vaccinated and so the very same conduct is a claim in one instance and not a claim in another that that seems a bit odd is a violation of constitutional one and not the other appreciating you know the view your question suggests there may be problems with what happened here but they do not rise to a constitutional level at least not first amendment constitutional i mean aren't there cases in the free exercise area that say the state can't impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion yes there are cases in and i mean isn't being subjected to this kind of pressure when you try to exercise that right your religion is couldn't that be a substantial burden now what this plaintiff was subjected to was exposure to ideas she disagrees with this court you know i thought it wasn't kids being taught about evolution or something i mean it this was not just you know putting the idea out there but also pressuring her with the direct immediate object allegedly a preventing her from exercising her acting according to her faith that's that's what they say isn't that that seems different than just simple exposure  it is troubling but appreciating the point you also made there this is not a child this is an adult who is was capable of not resisting i guess the kind of pressure that she you know search was being asserted on her yeah this particular plaintiff did not suffer an injury and while there may be a hypothetical person who under the same store circumstances might have reacted differently to men that scenario that may be true but this that is not the case for this plaintiff in the question of her standing all right thank you mr mr weller your red light is on but you have the questions just do you have anything to wrap up her are you done i will you ok good thank you all counties wayne county is in the same position as every other county and state the county says you know what people want to get vaccination exemptions here and here's a form the use it's a new form we're going to use just one page form there's nothing controversial on it and another thing the state provided was a script a larger document that says look when people come in proper order of people come in and have certain objections to vaccinations is what you say and so if you read the document it's a lot about science it's mostly about science this to you say this back to them ok if somebody says well i don't think that buddhists believe in it and said if somebody says to you say this back to them in point that you're not responsible for these nurses well i mean i would say well in the the case currently right so we have to supervisory employees have no personal and so they think they should be out great care lost a great doctor a mommy in their individual capacities don't know who who turn to callao is he had no involvement in it didn't you know in terms of the three defendants that exist for me today are you know are two individuals with nothing to do a turn to go in the county which has to be the only way you get county is a motel claim and they would say that the county has to have some policy independent of what the state is order is something that we have  first i want to address that there what mrs nikolaus did attempt to avoid engaging she kept telling them she has a religious exemption she told the nurses and she expressed stated that she didn't want to get engaged in a back and forth the nurses repeatedly persisted asking what her actual reasons for objecting to her telling her no religion subject to x a nation so she attempted to take yourself out of the situation and say the state says i'm entitled to a religious exemption please give me one and she was not allowed to do so second well currently the michigan exemption form is the same for both the philosophical or religious exemption states are getting rid of it and you can see this in case we cited lewis and burke that when the states take away the philosophical or other objection which there's a movement towards they then inquire into the sincerity of religious and objections and when you're past x so if your past form doesn't say religious they then question your current request for religious exemption so they're well currently in michigan there's no difference in the future that that distinction and that that she wasn't allowed to write like it's going to pass the  penalty on individuals already alleged to be suffering a violation of their constitutional rights that mrs nikolaus is a knowledgeable catholic and it has extreme fortitude does not negate the fact that her constitutional rights were violated here because the requirement for a violation of the of the free exercise clause here isn't changing your beliefs it's if the state compels you to compel compulsion doesn't mean compliance there's a  were up to it's hard to see what the basis her jumped of relief would be here as to these defendants would just because the form isn't on the website anymore doesn't mean it's not being sent to the local health departments in i mean do you have a position in the litigation in its current posture as to whether the department is still using that form we do not as alleged in our at the time of our complaint they were using the form and even you have a position as to now as to as to now we have no way of knowing that we we didn't get to discovery and in she still has the claim for nominal damages for the