A Superior Court judge in Stamford on Monday dismissed a lawsuit challenging a Connecticut law that eliminated religious exemptions from school vaccine requirements.
In the 2022 lawsuit, Spillane vs. Lamont, two mothers from Orange and Greenwich claimed that eliminating religious exemptions for student immunizations violated the state and federal constitutions, as well as Connecticut’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, or RFRA.
Two years later, the Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed five of the six claims raised in the lawsuit but remanded the plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to RFRA to Superior Court for further review.
The judge’s dismissal of the final claim on Monday drew the case to a close after more than four years.
“Vaccines save lives. Today’s decision affirms what we have said since day one — Connecticut’s commonsense school vaccine requirements are lifesaving and lawful,” said Attorney General William Tong in a statement on Monday evening.
The dismissal comes just months after the Connecticut legislature voted to pass legislation clarifying its repeal of the religious exemption — a move that drew heated criticism from Republicans.
“Governor Lamont and legislators changed the rules in the middle of the game,” said Lindy Uros, counsel for the plaintiffs. “There’s now a vaccine exemption to the First Amendment in Connecticut.”
In 2021, the legislature voted to eliminate religious exemptions for school vaccines. Connecticut is one of just five states that does not have a religious exemption for school vaccine requirements, according to a September 2026 analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But the lawsuit threatened the ban on religious exemptions the legislature had passed. Connecticut’s RFRA, passed in 1993, generally prohibits the state from burdening a person’s exercise of their religion, except in the case of “a compelling government interest.”
To protect the statute, Democratic lawmakers led an effort to pass a measure, tucked into a broader vaccine bill, creating the first-ever carveout to Connecticut’s RFRA.
Prior to the vote, House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said the attorney general’s office had told him there was a chance the state could lose the case based on RFRA as it was written.
Ritter said the measure was an attempt to clarify “for the court, that in 2021 we meant what we said, which is there’s no religious exemption available for vaccines.”
Republicans called it an erosion of religious freedom.
“For the first time in Connecticut history, the legislature is carving out an exception into our Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If we can suspend religious liberty protections for vaccines here today, what rights are we going to carve out for tomorrow?” Public Health Committee Ranking Member Nicole Klarides-Ditria, R-Seymour, said during a House debate.
Several Republicans also raised concerns that Lamont and his fellow Democrats were using the legislation to protect the state from losing the lawsuit, which was pending at the time.
“Is this legislature rewriting the law because the state is worried it might lose ongoing litigation over vaccine mandates?” Klarides-Ditria asked during the floor debate.
Tong’s argument in his motion to dismiss the case — filed roughly a month after the new law passed — hinged on the measure.
“The sole statute on which Plaintiffs’ entire complaint relies — both for jurisdiction of this court and as a cause of action — has been amended to clarify and exempt from its reach school vaccination requirements,” the motion stated.
Public Health Committee co-Chair Sen. Saud Anwar, D-South Windsor, said the dismissal would help to ensure Connecticut families don’t have to face outbreaks of preventable diseases.
“Amid rapidly changing federal vaccine standards casting confusion and doubt on the effective, life-saving tool that has helped reduce disease in our communities for decades, it is reassuring to know Connecticut’s standards will remain in place, keeping our children and communities better protected,” Anwar wrote in a statement.
