ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2026
CONTACT: NICOLE VELASCO AT
MEDIA@FAITH-FREEDOM.COM
Murrieta, CA — July 10, 2026 — Advocates for Faith & Freedom filed a response letter with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of the Appellants in Royce v. Bonta, addressing supplemental authority recently submitted by the State of California.
The filing explains why the recent Second Circuit decision in Miller v. McDonald does not support affirming California’s vaccine mandate and is materially distinguishable from the issues presented in Royce v. Bonta. The response argues that the Second Circuit’s decision repeats constitutional errors previously rejected by the United States Supreme Court and does not alter the legal analysis governing California’s law.
“Government cannot deny religious accommodations while granting broad secular exemptions to similarly situated individuals,” said Erin Elizabeth Mersino, counsel for the Appellants. “When the State singles out religious exercise for less favorable treatment, the First Amendment requires the courts to apply strict scrutiny. That is exactly what should happen here.”
The response letter highlights several critical distinctions between the two cases, including:
- California’s SB 277 contains numerous secular exemptions—including exemptions for students with individualized education programs (IEPs), independent study participants, adults over age 18, medical exemptions, and certain categories of vulnerable students—while continuing to deny religious exemptions.
- Unlike the record in Miller, there is no evidence in Royce that granting religious exemptions would create unvaccinated enclaves or otherwise undermine public health objectives.
- SB 277 forces parents to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by conditioning access to both public and private school education on vaccination, imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise and parental rights.
- The district court improperly applied rational basis review rather than the strict scrutiny required under Supreme Court precedent governing free exercise claims.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom maintains that California’s refusal to accommodate religious objectors while permitting broad secular exemptions violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The organization argues that longstanding Supreme Court precedent requires strict scrutiny whenever government treats comparable secular conduct more favorably than religious exercise.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Royce v. Bonta on April 17, 2026. The court’s decision remains pending.
###