Litigation Update
July 24, 2026
This week’s newsletter discusses cases concerning vaccine mandates, food-restrictive SNAP pilots, tobacco control and youth climate advocacy. To access any of our previous newsletters, you can find them archived here.
Second Circuit Again Upholds NY Vaccine Mandate Post-Mahmoud
In Miller v. McDonald (Docket No. 24-681), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit once again affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the New York Legislature’s decision to bar religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements.
The lawsuit, which we covered in our December 12th and January 16th newsletters, came about after the NY Legislature repealed the religious exemption to school vaccine requirements in 2019. Three Amish community schools subsequently sued, claiming that the repeal of the exemption violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and improperly infringed on parents’ right to manage the “religious upbringing of their children.” A District Court judge granted the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged a plausible constitutional violation. The Second Circuit affirmed that decision in 2025. Later in 2025, however, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for consideration based on the Court’s ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In its 2025 Mahmoud v. Taylor decision, the Supreme Court ruled that parents suing to enjoin a school board’s policy of including LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks in elementary school education were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court ruled that such a policy improperly burdened parents’ religious exercise because it undermined the religious beliefs and practices they sought to teach their children.
In an opinion issued in June of this year, the Second Circuit again affirmed the District Court judge’s decision to dismiss the Amish schools’ challenge to New York’s vaccine policy — even after considering the implications of Mahmoud. The Second Circuit first found that the law did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments because it was neutral and not discriminatory and was generally applicable, triggering the deferential standard of rational basis review, which the plaintiffs conceded that the law survives.
Then, turning to Mahmoud, the Second Circuit determined that New York’s law is different from the school board’s LGBTQ+ storybook policy in Mahmoud and therefore does not trigger strict judicial scrutiny. The Second Circuit reasoned that unlike the policy in Mahmoud, New York’s law does not “regulate what children are taught, does not require them to affirm any belief, does not expose them to state-selected instruction contrary to their parents’ faith, and does not enlist school officials to displace parental religious formation.” Instead, New York’s law simply mandates a health and safety-related condition for attending school in person in order to minimize disease transmission. Therefore, strict scrutiny is not triggered, and the law survives, the court wrote.
The public health benefits of vaccinating kids are well-established, with research showing that childhood vaccinations save an estimated 2 million to 3 million lives each year around the world and have contributed to a global reduction in infant mortality rates. Vaccines are also an extremely cost-effective way of combatting childhood disease.
Court Strikes Down Food-Restrictive SNAP Pilots
In Aragon et al. v. Rollins et al. (Docket No. 1:26-cv-00861), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, holding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exceeded its legal authority when it approved a waiver allowing states to implement pilot programs to restrict benefits available under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This case, which we covered in our March 27 newsletter, was brought by five low-income individuals to challenge the USDA’s Food Restriction Waivers that allow individual states to restrict SNAP recipients’ purchases of items such as sugary drinks and candy. Many of the plaintiffs live with diabetes and other chronic disabilities and allege they need access to the restricted food items to maintain their health and food security. In their initial complaint, plaintiffs argued the pilot program could endanger their access to essential foods and will make it impossible for retailers to maintain compliance with the waivers, which could worsen food deserts.
The USDA can approve waiver projects under Section 17(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act, which allows the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct pilot programs that increase the efficiency and improve the administration of SNAP. The District Court concluded, however, that these food-restriction demonstrations did not fall within the category of projects authorized by that provision, which are limited to projects that improve program administration, increase participant self-sufficiency, or test innovative welfare reform strategies, among other efficiency-related initiatives. The statute and legislative history both demonstrate that the Secretary is to conduct projects related to administrative efficiency only; and there is no mention of pilot projects aimed at nutrition or health. The court further noted that the pilot programs at issue here “actually add administrative complexity, as both SNAP participants and retailers must deal with new rules affecting what can and cannot be purchased.” The court also emphasized that the USDA failed to follow its own procedures by failing to publish notices in the Federal Register at least 30 days before implementing a demonstration project that would have a significant impact on the public.
This decision invalidates the food-restriction pilot programs currently in place in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. We will follow this case to see if the defendants appeal the grant of summary judgment.
Nicotine Pouch Manufacturers Win Injunction Against FDA
In C Store Depot et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Docket No. 8:26-cv-00483), plaintiffs manufacture and distribute synthetic nicotine pouches, which are typically placed between a user’s lower lip and gum, where the nicotine is then absorbed into the bloodstream. Defendant FDA regulates these products and imposes requirements for plaintiffs to keep their product on the market. The FDA concluded that plaintiffs did not meet these requirements and therefore couldn’t distribute their product. Plaintiffs sued the FDA over this decision.
In 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) was passed to give the FDA certain authority to regulate tobacco products, covering four categories from all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. It also granted the FDA authority to regulate other products “deemed to be subject to the TCA,” which the FDA later extended to cigars, e-cigars, e-cigarettes, all electronic nicotine delivery systems, vape pens, nicotine gels, any product derived from tobacco or containing nicotine, and any future product that meets the definition under 21 U.S.C. § 321(rr), also known as the Deeming Rule. If a product seeking approval is not substantially equivalent to a product on the market as of February 15, 2007, or subject to an exemption, a manufacturer must submit a premarket tobacco application (PMTA), a federal rule, to the FDA.
After the FDA denied plaintiff’s application for a tobacco product, stating the application did not include enough information, plaintiffs challenged the PMTA, contending that the rule violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The RFA requires government agencies to conduct a cost analysis or certify that any of its rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Plaintiffs attack the FDA’s argument that the PMTA rule has no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and is in fact causing them irreparable economic harm. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their argument that the FDA’s action was arbitrary or capricious, as the FDA attributed any costs that result from the requirement of submitting PMTAs to the Deeming Rule, not the PMTA rule.
On April 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, permitting them to continue to market their products while this action is pending. Defendants appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on June 9, 2026.
Youth Appeal Climate Case Against WI Energy Laws
In Dunn v. Wisconsin Public Service Commission (Wisconsin Circuit Court, Docket No. 2025-CV-002797), more than a dozen youth plaintiffs challenged several Wisconsin statutes that they allege “create and perpetuate a fossil fuel-dominated electricity sector.”
Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged statutes that they say: 1) prevent the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission) from using air pollution as a reason to reject permits for new fossil fuel-fired plants; and2) establish a cap on the amount of renewable electricity production the Commission can mandate that providers supply. These statutes, the plaintiffs say, contribute to climate change and harm the plaintiffs by violating their right to life, liberty, and a “stable climate system” along with their right to access, use, and enjoy public trust waters. Both of these rights, the plaintiffs argue, are found in the Wisconsin Constitution.
The lawsuit was originally filed in Wisconsin state court in 2025. In April of 2026, a judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that environmental policy is a political question that is inappropriate for the judiciary to determine. In May, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
The health implications of climate change are clear, as warming temperatures have been linked to a variety of adverse outcomes. A sampling of such impacts include: a higher amount of respiratory and cardiovascular ailments; harms and deaths related to extreme weather; and illnesses from food and water, infectious diseases, and mental health issues. Research has also shown that the effects of climate change will disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, such as children, older adults, people of color, and low-income communities. In turn, the increased prevalence of adverse health impacts as climate change escalates will put additional strain on already burdened health care systems and ultimately lead to higher costs.
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. (password: amicus)