The workers had asked the Supreme Court to block the mandate based on their religious objections while their legal challenge moved forward.<\/b>
\nJustice Stephen G. Breyer on Tuesday turned away a request from health care workers in Maine who had asked the Supreme Court to block a state vaccine mandate based on their religious objections while their legal challenge moved forward. Justice Breyer did not ask for a response to the workers\u2019 application or refer it to the full Supreme Court. He said the workers could return to the Supreme Court after the federal appeals court rules on their appeal or if that court does not issue a decision by Oct.29. That is the date on which the state has said it will start enforcing the requirement. Last week, Judge Jon D. Levy of the Federal District Court in Maine, ruled that the requirement did not run afoul of the First Amendment\u2019s protection of the free exercise of religion. \u201cBoth the serious risk of illness and death associated with the spread of the Covid-19 virus and the efforts by state and local governments to reduce that risk have burdened most aspects of modern life,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIn this case, the plaintiffs \u2014 health care workers and a health care provider \u2014 have shown that their refusal to be vaccinated based on their religious beliefs has resulted or will result in real hardships as it relates to their jobs,\u201d Judge Levy wrote. \u201cThey have not, however, been prevented from staying true to their professed religious beliefs which, they claim, compel them to refuse to be vaccinated against Covid-19.\u201d A unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, refused to block the mandate while the workers\u2019 appeal of Judge Levy\u2019s ruling moved forward. The Supreme Court had earlier rejected challenges to vaccination requirements at Indiana University and for personnel in New York City\u2019s school system. Those rulings were also issued by just one justice, which can be a sign that the legal questions involved were not considered substantial.<\/p>\n