On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to entertain an appeal related to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the workplace, marking a setback for vaccine skeptics nationwide, reported Newsweek.
The denial was revealed in the Supreme Court's recent orders list, with the court opting not to engage in further deliberations in the case of Katie Sczesny, et al. v. Murphy, Gov. of New Jersey, et al.
The Supreme Court decision unfolds against the backdrop of lingering skepticism among some Americans regarding the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and previous mandates for employee vaccination during the pandemic's peak.
This legal battle centered around four New Jersey nurses who contested the state's COVID-19 vaccine requirements in the workplace, citing religious freedom and health concerns.
Although the Supreme Court did not furnish additional details on the rationale behind rejecting the case, this decision upholds the U.S. court of appeals ruling for the 3rd Circuit.
The appellate court had determined that the vaccine mandate contested by the nurses did not infringe upon their constitutional freedoms and permitted the maintenance of an executive order issued by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy.
In April of the preceding year, the four nurses — Katie Sczesny, Jamie Rumfield, Debra Hagen, and Mariette Vitti — initiated legal action against the state of New Jersey, asserting that executive orders linked to the COVID-19 crisis and vaccine booster requirements violated the Constitution.
A section of their complaint singled out Executive Order 283, issued by Gov. Murphy, mandating healthcare workers to receive COVID-19 vaccinations and booster shots.
The nurses contended that "EO 283 violates the liberty and privacy rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including the right to refuse medical procedures and the right to not be medically surveilled by government actors."
Additionally, they argued that the vaccine mandates infringed upon their religious freedoms. The complaint highlighted Sczesny's pregnancy, noting her reluctance to receive a booster while pregnant. Allegedly, Sczesny was informed by her employer that her pregnancy "was not a legitimate reason to wait to receive her booster."
Expressing disappointment, Dana Wefer, legal representative for the nurses, conveyed to Newsweek on Tuesday, "We are disappointed the Supreme Court did not take up this issue now, but hope that it will take up this question soon, whether in this case after final judgment or another case. We need our highest court to provide guidance on this important question of liberty before another pandemic and another emergency vaccine."
While the lower court of appeals dismissed the initial challenge, the four nurses sought a reconsideration, prompting their plea to the Supreme Court to hear their case.
Jim Thomas ✉
Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.