HELENA — A federal appeals court panel has reversed a lower court ruling upholding Montana’s “vaccine discrimination” law, which also applies to health care facilities.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling last week.
In 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Montana Legislature approved House Bill 702, which prohibits denying access to goods, services, or opportunities based on vaccination status. It would also prevent employers from requiring employees to get vaccinated.
There are several exceptions to the law that were added through amendments proposed by Gov. Greg Gianforte. One of them said that certain health care facilities can make “reasonable accommodations” to protect the health and safety of patients, employees, and visitors, and that facilities can ask employees if they have been vaccinated. states that if they refuse, they can be treated as not having been vaccinated. answer.
Plaintiffs led by the Montana Medical Association sued, arguing that HB 702 jeopardizes the state’s ability to protect patients and employees, especially the immunocompromised and disabled. They argued that despite the law’s exceptions, HB 702 violates federal laws regarding accommodations for people with disabilities and the elimination of hazards in the workplace.
In 2022, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy sided with the plaintiffs, saying the law “removed a critical tool from the toolbox of health care providers” to stop the spread of the disease. He ruled that it is unconstitutional when applied to medical settings.
However, Circuit Court Judge Daniel Brace wrote in an opinion signed by two of the three justices that Molloy’s ruling was “overbroad” and that his findings would be subject to HB 702 and the federal It merely indicates a “hypothetical or potential conflict” between the laws, he wrote.
“Absent records specific to a particular plaintiff and a particular health care facility, a health care employer’s inability to discriminate based on an employee’s non-vaccination does not constitute a violation of the ADA in any or all cases. No, we should grant a warrant to facially invalidate HB 702 in medical settings,” he wrote.
Brace wrote that this decision does not preclude future challenges to HB 702’s enforcement “based on appropriate certification.”
In a concurring opinion, Senior Circuit Judge M. Margaret McCune disagreed with the standards that other judges had used to decide the case, but said that at this point the plaintiffs have no right to the law. agreed that the court did not present sufficient evidence to justify preemption.
“While it is certainly possible that HB 702 would be preempted in some circumstances, the burden is on Montana Medical to justify the scope of the relief sought,” she wrote.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office defended HB 702 in court and praised the commission’s decision in a statement.
“This is great news for Montanans,” the spokesperson said. “No one should be discriminated against because of their vaccination status. We are glad the Ninth Circuit corrected Molloy’s erroneous decision.”
Dr. Ernest “Joe” Gray, president of the Montana State Medical Association, also released a statement.
“Doctors and health care providers want their patients to know that our policies are in place to protect them when they receive care, and this decision disrupts that. “It’s becoming even more difficult.” “We are currently reviewing the Ninth Circuit’s decision and considering future legal options.”
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include a statement from the Montana State Medical Association.
