Superior Court Judge Edward T. Krumeich dismissed the last remaining claim in a four-year legal challenge to Connecticut’s removal of the religious belief vaccine exemption from state laws requiring school attendance. The judge’s decision did not address whether the ban on religious vaccine exemptions violated the law. Rather, the decision was based on the fact that the state legislature had amended the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in April 2026, the Act the plaintiffs were basing their argument on and needed to bring their claim.1
Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted in 1993 and codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571b, provides that,
The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.2
In 2021, the General Assembly voted to end the religious belief vaccine exemptions for school attendance requirements under Public Act 21-6. Parents of several children filed suit the following year, arguing the elimination violated the state constitution, the federal constitution, and the RFRA. In 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed all but one of the claims and sent the remaining RFRA challenge to the Superior Court for further review.3
Changing the Law
Before Judge Krumeich could reach the merits of that claim, the legislature acted. On April 27, 2026, Governor Lamont signed Public Act 26-3, which added a new subdivision to RFRA. The Act now states, “[t]he provisions of this section shall not apply to Connecticut’s school vaccination requirements.” Public Act 26-3 was written to take effect immediately and to apply to every civil action already pending in court at that time including the legal challenge to the removal of the religious exemption to vaccination requirements related to school attendance.4
House Speaker Matt Ritter said the amendment was intended to send a message to the court that the 2021 legislature had no intention of allowing any religious belief exemption to the vaccine requirements.5
Some lawmakers argued the move was designed to protect the state from losing the case. Public Health Committee Ranking Member Nicole Klarides-Ditria questioned whether the legislature was amending the law to avoid losing ongoing litigation.6
Klarides-Ditria warned:
For the first time in Connecticut history, the legislature is carving out an exception into our Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If we can suspend religious liberty protections for vaccines here today, what rights are we going to carve out for tomorrow?7
The Plaintiffs fought to keep the case alive. In their court filing opposing dismissal, the plaintiffs wrote,
The defendants and their Democrat cohorts throughout our government have used their overwhelming power in the most despicable manner imaginable by enacting a new law that is designed solely to defeat this lawsuit.8
The Motion to Dismiss:
The state’s motion to dismiss argued:
The sole statute on which Plaintiffs’ entire complaint relies—both for jurisdiction of this court and as a cause of action—has been amended to clarify and exempt from its reach school vaccination requirements. As a result of this change Plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed.”9
Attorney General William Tong said in a statement that the decision was consistent with the state’s position from the beginning of the case.10
At this time, Connecticut will remain one of five states that do not allow a religious belief or consciencious or philosophical belief exemption to school vaccine requirements.11
Lindy Urso, lawyer for the parents, explained that state officials had not defeated the RFRA claim but they had, instead, changed the rules while the contest was underway.12
Urso commented on the dismissal of the lawsuit, stating:
There is no triumph in watching the most powerful political actors in Connecticut place the full weight of the government boot upon the necks of families, force those families to fight for years merely to obtain judicial review, and then—when victory is in sight—press the boot down one final time by changing the law. That is not the majesty of the government. It is precisely this type of abuse of government, trampling on individual liberties, that our state and federal constitutions were designed to prevent.13
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:1 Spillane v. Lamont, No. FSTCV226056249S, Order on Motion to Dismiss. Conn. Super. Ct. Sep.14, 2026.
2 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571b. Connecticut Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Connecticut General Assembly. 1993.
3 Spillane v. Lamont, 350 Conn. 119. Connecticut Supreme Court. July 30, 2024.
4 State of Connecticut. State Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. Spillane v. Lamont, No. FSTCV226056249S. DocumentCloud. May 29, 2026.
5 Golvala K. CT court upholds state law: No religious exemptions to vaccines. CT Mirror Sept.15, 2026.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Stieber Z. Judge Upholds Connecticut’s Removal of Religious Vaccine Exemptions. The Epoch Times Sep.16, 2026.
9 State of Connecticut. State Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. Spillane v. Lamont, No. FSTCV226056249S. DocumentCloud. May 29, 2026.
10 Tong W. Attorney General Tong Statement on Dismissal of Challenge to Connecticut School Vaccine Requirements. CT Attorney General’s Office. Sept. 15, 2026.
11 National Conference of State Legislatures. State Non-Medical Exemptions from School Immunization Requirements. NCS. Sep. 2026.
12 Stieber Z. Judge Upholds Connecticut’s Removal of Religious Vaccine Exemptions. The Epoch Times Sep. 16, 2026.
13 Ibid.
