W.Va. Supreme Court could hear oral arguments in compulsory vaccine lawsuit appeal next month
Trending
CHARLESTON – After keeping West Virginia’s compulsory vaccine law for school-age children in place last year after a lower court decision tried to block its enforcement, the state Supreme Court of Appeals wants to hear oral arguments in the case and allow Gov. Patrick Morrisey to intervene.
According to a filing Monday, the state Supreme Court issued an order and rule to show cause in two separate legal matters involving West Virginia’s compulsory vaccine law stemming from a Nov. 26, 2025, written ruling by 14th Judicial Circuit Judge Michael Froble in case brought by Raleigh County parents challenging an order by state education officials to follow existing law despite an earlier executive order by Morrisey allowing for religious and conscientious objections to the vaccination mandates.
The West Virginia Board of Education, State Superintendent of Schools Michele Blatt, Raleigh County Superintendent of Schools Serena Starcher, and the Raleigh County Board of Education filed appeals earlier this year, one against Froble himself and one in the original case brought by Miranda Guzman and other Raleigh County parents.
The Court officially consolidated both matters for the purposes of oral argument, consideration, and decision, setting the unified case for oral argument under Rule 20 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Cases assigned to Rule 20 involve issues of first impression, public importance, constitutional questions regarding statutory or court rulings, or lower tribunal conflicts. Justice William Wooton was the lone dissent, not supporting the consolidation of the two cases.
The Supreme Court also granted a motion by the Governor’s Office to participate in oral arguments as amicus curiae – friends of the court – allocating five minutes of the respondents’ 20-minute argument time to the Governor’s counsel. Morrisey is represented by Holly Wilson, principal deputy solicitor general for the state Attorney General's Office.
Morrisey filed an amicus brief in May, arguing that the Equal Protection for Religion Act – created by House Bill 2042 in 2023 – allows for religious exemptions for school vaccine mandates despite the exemption itself not being part of state code. Morrisey signed an executive order on Jan. 14, 2025, one day after taking office, to create a pathway for religious exemptions to the compulsory vaccine law.
Justices H.L. Kirkpatrick and Bill Flanigan did not concur with the majority of justices in allowing Morrisey’s participation in oral arguments. Both justices defeated two Morrisey-appointed justices in special elections in May.
State code requires children to be vaccinated against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and hepatitis B unless they have been granted a medical exemption.
Morrisey’s executive order remained in effect even after a failed attempt by some in the Republican-led Legislature during the 2025 regular session to pass a bill adding religious exemptions to the compulsory vaccine law. In the spring of 2025, the state Board of Education issued guidance through the Department of Education to county school systems to continue to abide by existing state code and not honor religious vaccine exemptions.
Guzman and other Raleigh County families filed suit against local and state education officials in June 2025 asking the courts to grant a preliminary and permanent injunction against education officials to require them to accept the granted exemptions. Morrisey attended a press conference announcing the lawsuit and expressed his support.
Judge Froble granted both the preliminary injunction that summer and a permanent injunction in November 2025, as well as certifying the Guzman case as a class action that applied to families with religious vaccine exemptions statewide except those with pending cases before other circuit court judges. The state Board of Education and the Raleigh County Board of Education appealed these rulings to the state Supreme Court, which granted a stay of Froble’s rulings one month later.
The only question remaining is when oral arguments might occur. According to a spokesperson for the Supreme Court, all remaining scheduled argument days in October are fully booked with Wednesday, Nov. 4, being the only remaining open oral argument date in the fall term. That would provide a limited amount of time for the justices to render an opinion by the end of the fall term on Nov. 13.
If oral arguments are not scheduled for Nov. 4, arguments will have to roll into the spring term, which begins on Jan. 12, 2027.