American University
Challenge of Mandatory Covid Vaccine Requirement in New York-Blocked by Justice Sotomayor.pdf (72.21 kB)

Challenge of Mandatory Covid Vaccine Requirement in New York-Blocked by Justice Sotomayor

Download (72.21 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-07-28, 19:17 authored by Rachel Zelicof

Context: What happened?

On October 1, 2021 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the blocking of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for New York City business workers in New York State. [1] About a year later, a group of firefighters, police officers, emergency technicians, and teachers are now challenging the mandate. [2] Although the mandate has been removed from some settings such as private businesses, it is still required for municipal workers. [3]

Further Details: Justice Sotomayor’s actions.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia “Sotomayor once again rejected a bid that would prevent NYC from enforcing its vaccine mandate requirement” [1]. Justice Sotomayor struck down the New Yorkers for Religious Liberty group. [1] However, this is not a surprise since Justice Sotomayor also denied requests to repeal the vaccine mandate from a police detective last August. [1]

Implications: Do Justice Sotomayor’s actions violate the Constitution?

Many NYC workers have criticized the enforcement of the mandate claiming that their rights have been infringed upon under the First Amendment of the Constitution. They have indicated that they feel discriminated against for their religion. [1] However, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly cover medical mandates within the area of religious freedom. Thus, it is difficult to judge whether or not the mandate should be removed. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the mandate infringes on someone’s religious freedom or free speech under the Constitution. This led to much ambiguity and a lack of clarity within the Constitution. Perhaps, Supreme Court Justices should provide an explanation for the constitutionality of their actions.



American University (Washington, D.C.); Juris Mentem Law Review


This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Juris Mentem Law Review. This article has been accepted for inclusion in the Juris Mentem Digital Collection. The Digital Collection is edited by Juris Mentem Staff but is not peer-reviewed by university faculty. For more information, visit: Questions can be directed to


Juris Mentem Law Review

Usage metrics

    Juris Mentem Law Review



    Ref. manager