May 8, 2026
This week’s newsletter discusses cases concerning challenges to West Virginia’s compulsory school vaccination law, the dismantling of HHS, and a pending Supreme Court decision that could shield pesticide manufacturers from liability for failure to warn of known health hazards. You can find an archive of our previous newsletters here.
West Virginia Vaccine Exemption Litigation: Federal and State Updates
In Perry v. Marteney (Docket No. 24-2132, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit), plaintiff parents filed a lawsuit on behalf of their daughter to obtain a religious exemption under West Virginia’s school vaccination law after she was disenrolled from a public virtual school for being unvaccinated. West Virginia’s’ law does not allow for religious exemptions, but plaintiffs argued this violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom. In 2024, the district court agreed and granted a preliminary injunction to allow the daughter to remain in school. The district court applied the strict scrutiny test to the law, the hardest standard to overcome. However, on April 8, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that West Virginia’s compulsory vaccination law is neutral and generally applicable, and therefore subject only to rational basis review, a much easier standard to overcome. The majority also rejected the argument that permitting medical exemptions undermines the law’s general applicability, finding that medical exemptions designed to advance health interests are categorically distinct from religious ones.
West Virginia has one of the strongest school vaccination laws in the country – being one of only a handful of states that don’t allow religious or philosophical exemptions. The Fourth Circuit’s decision is a significant reaffirmation of state authority to enforce school vaccination requirements, rooted in the longstanding constitutional framework of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (197 U.S. 11 (1905)), the United States Supreme Court case which upheld a state’s compulsory vaccination law. We covered Perry in a two-part series on litigation challenging school vaccine mandates in January 2025, if of interest.
On the state court side, as we covered in our December 2025 newsletter, Guzman v. West Virginia Board of Education and Hess v. West Virginia Department of Health (Guzman) were consolidated and certified as a class action for families seeking religious exemptions. As a recap, a Circuit Court judge granted permanent injunctive relief requiring West Virginia school boards to honor religious exemptions issued by the state Department of Health under Governor Morrisey’s January 2025 executive order, which relies on the state’s 2023 Equal Protection for Religion Act (EPRA). In December 2025, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals stayed that ruling pending appeal.
State and local education officials filed their brief in support of the school vaccine law in late March 2026, arguing the Circuit Court misinterpreted EPRA by adding a religious exemption into the state’s vaccine law, which the legislature has repeatedly declined to amend (including in 2025). Public Health Law Watch staff Wendy E. Parmet and Shannon Rempe assisted with and signed on as amici – alongside many other public health organizations and scholars – to an amicus brief in this case. Filed by attorneys at Epstein, Becker & Green, the amicus brief argues that history demonstrates the consequences of unchecked infectious disease, and that declining vaccination rates allows preventable diseases to return and spread rapidly through schools.
Attorneys representing Guzman have until May 11 to file a respondent brief, with the reply brief due June 1. We will continue to track this case and provide updates as needed.
Challenging Kennedy’s Dismantling of HHS
In State of New York et al. v. Kennedy et al. (Docket No. 1:25-cv-00196, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island), twenty attorneys general challenged the Trump administration’s sweeping restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and to reverse the significant cuts and termination of 10,000 employees Secretary Kennedy made to HHS agencies. On April 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, allowing the case to move forward.
The lawsuit challenges the administration’s March 27, 2025, directive, announcing its goal to dramatically reduce HHS staff and eliminate several sub-agencies through large-scale reductions in force (RIFs). The amended complaint alleges that these actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with constitutional violations including separation of powers, the Appropriations Clause, and exceeding executive authority. The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) within CDC was hit particularly hard by these RIFs, with NCCDPHP including the sub-agencies Office on Smoking and Health and the Division of Reproductive Health (DRH), which lost most of its 100 employees. When operational, DRH coordinated federal maternal mortality surveillance and supported state efforts to prevent pregnancy-related deaths. Their critical role was highlighted in an amicus brief filed by ACLU of Rhode Island and The Lawyering Project, which also shares personal accounts from families who lost loved ones to preventable pregnancy complications.
In the Judge’s April 7 order, she rejected each of the government's arguments on standing, jurisdiction, and the merits, noting that the government had recycled arguments already rejected by both this District Court and the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, which had denied an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction in September 2025. The District Court reconfirmed the previous courts findings: the states had demonstrated concrete harms, including disruption of services state agencies depend on, and that the government acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
This “restructuring” of HHS puts at risk the capacity of agencies to respond to public health emergencies, monitor disease outbreaks, and ensure the safety of the food and drug supply. State and local health departments, which rely heavily on HHS funding and technical assistance for programs ranging from tobacco prevention to pandemic response, face particular disruption. The case is ongoing, with a joint status report due June 22.
Supreme Court Considers Federal Preemption of Pesticide Failure-to-Warn Claims
In Monsanto v. Durnell (Docket No. 24-1068), the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 27, 2026 – a case that could significantly restrict the ability of individuals harmed by pesticide exposure to seek redress in state court. Put simply, the central question is whether a company can be held liable in state court for failing to include a product warning label when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasn’trequired that warning. The case arises from a Missouri jury verdict of $1.25 million in favor of John Durnell, who alleged that Monsanto failed to disclose the cancer risk associated with glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – which the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Over 100,000 similar cases are pending nationwide.
Monsanto argued that since the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates the use and labeling of pesticides and prohibits states from including additional or different labeling requirements, that FIFRA preempts state tort claims, like Durnell’s. Monsanto further argued that manufacturers cannot unilaterally (without EPA approval) add label warnings without risking a “misbranding”violation. The Trump administration filed an amicus brief supporting Monsanto, reversing the Biden administration’s position. Interestingly, Children’s Health Defense – the anti-vaccine group founded by Secretary Kennedy – filed an amicus brief in support of Durnell.
During oral argument, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Jackson pressed Monsanto’s counsel on why states shouldn’t be able to act more quickly than the EPA’s lengthy review process when new safety information emerges. Durnell’s counsel argued that FIFRA does not give the EPA’s label approvals the preemptive force Monsanto claims, and that the law as written does not prevent juries from finding that a product needed a different warning. A ruling in Monsanto’s favor would remove a critical accountability mechanism for pesticide-related harms and leave individuals without an avenue to obtain damages for medical expenses and other costs. A decision is expected by early July.
We’re Hiring! The Center for Health Policy and Law is seeking a Program Director for the Salus Populi project. Please share widely with your networks, or apply today!
Partner With Us! Please take this survey to let us know about local and state cases impacting public health or health equity, and to help us build our network of outside counsel.