West Virginia Family Asks Supreme Court to Hear Vaccine Exemption Case

Parents have long held the right to guide their children’s religious upbringing, a right the Constitution protects even—or perhaps especially—when it collides with a government rule. That tension arises in all kinds of contexts: school curricula, medical decisions, and the accommodations states carve out for some views but not others.

A common flashpoint is vaccination. Every state requires children to be vaccinated before attending school, and 45 offer a religious or philosophical exemption for those who object. West Virginia doesn’t. But it does categorically exempt homeschooled children, and those in a microschool (an alternative school) or learning pod (like a co-op). Krystle and Anthony Perry wanted an accommodation for their daughter, who was attending West Virginia’s virtual public school entirely from home. Their reason was religious. Officials said no and disenrolled their daughter.

Now the Perrys are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.

No vaccine exemptions for virtual public school?

West Virginia requires school-age children to be vaccinated against diseases like measles, whooping cough, and polio—but only if they attend a public, private, or parochial school. The only exemption listed in the statute is medical. But the statute does not apply to homeschooled children, or those in a microschool or learning pod. Those parents can choose not to be vaccinated for any reason or no reason at all. West Virginia is one of just five states with no religious or philosophical exemption to its childhood vaccination law.

The Perrys’ daughter, K.P., attended the West Virginia Virtual Academy, a free, all-online public school available to any family in the state. Because she was enrolled in a public school, the vaccination requirement applied to her—even though, like homeschooled students, she completed her schooling at home.

K.P. was enrolled in the Virtual Academy without incident for about 16 months. She thrived, earning straight A’s and enjoying the structure and social interaction the program offered. Then, in January 2024, a school official learned K.P. wasn’t fully vaccinated and disenrolled her. When the Perrys asked for a religious exemption, officials told them that none was available.

Without an exemption, the family’s only option—aside from vaccinating their daughter in violation of their religious convictions—is to homeschool K.P. instead. But homeschooling would significantly burden the Perrys. Mr. Perry has a disability that prevents him from serving as his daughter’s teacher, and Mrs. Perry works as the family’s sole breadwinner.

The Perrys sued the school officials responsible, arguing that the disenrollment violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. In October 2024, a federal district court agreed, granting the Perrys’ request for a preliminary injunction that ordered school officials to let K.P. re-enroll while the case moved forward.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit disagreed. In a split decision issued in April 2026, the court held that West Virginia’s law was likely constitutional. One judge dissented, warning that the majority’s reasoning ignored the fact that virtual students pose no greater risk to public health than the homeschool and microschool children the law already exempts.

The Perrys are thus appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Religious beliefs must be respected

The Perrys are Christians whose faith shapes all aspects of their lives, including how they raise their daughter. After K.P. received several rounds of vaccines as a young child, they learned that some vaccines required by the childhood-vaccination law were developed using cells from aborted fetuses. Given their belief that abortion is sinful—the murder of an innocent life—the Perrys concluded they must stop vaccinating their daughter when she was two. After thought and prayer, the Perrys also came to believe that they should not seek medical intervention, including vaccines, unless K.P. is sick.

Beliefs like these are exactly what the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty is meant to protect. The Constitution generally doesn’t allow the government to treat non-religious conduct better than comparable religious conduct.

But West Virginia’s law does just that. Parents who homeschool their child, or sends that child to a microschool or learning pod, don’t have to vaccinate that child—whether for a secular reason, a religious reason, or no reason at all. The Perrys wanted to educate their daughter in much the same way: entirely from home. The only (potential) difference is that their reason for skipping vaccination was religious.

West Virginia officials refused the Perrys’ requested accommodation, even though—as the dissenting 4th Circuit judge noted—a student learning entirely online poses no greater health risk than a homeschooled child the statute already exempts.

The Constitution protects a parent’s right to direct their child’s religious upbringing. Forcing the Perrys to choose between vaccinating their daughter against their beliefs and giving up the free public education West Virginia offers every other family burdens that right significantly.

The bottom line

When a state excuses people from a rule for secular reasons, the Constitution doesn’t allow it to deny a similar accommodation to someone whose reason is religious instead.

Perry v. Marteney

• August 2022: The Perrys enroll their daughter in the West Virginia Virtual Academy, a free, online public school.
• January 2024: School officials disenroll the Perrys’ daughter upon learning that she is not fully vaccinated.
• July 2024: The Perrys file a lawsuit after being denied a religious exemption from the vaccination law.
• October 2024: A federal district court grants a preliminary injunction, allowing K.P. to return to the Virtual Academy while the case proceeds.
• April 2026: A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reverses, ruling against the Perrys.
• September 2026: The Perrys file their petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.