MARTINSBURG, W.Va. — A suit filed last week in Berkeley County is the latest in West Virginia to challenge vaccination requirements that are being enforced by the state Board of Education. It is now among a handful of other lawsuits filed around the state.
On August 28th, five parents filed a suit against the West Virginia and Berkeley County Boards of Education seeking injunctive relief.
The suit was filed on behalf of eight children, and names every member of the state and county boards as well as Berkeley County Schools Superintendent Dr. Ryan Saxe.
According to the civil complaint obtained by the Panhandle News Network, plaintiff’s counsel Christian J. Riddell identified the students and their parents by initial only. “The children named herein are, as always, identified pseudonymously, given their minor
status. The adult parties are also identified pseudonymously on the basis that the instant Petition involves hotly contested political, moral, and religious issues which are likely to
create negative or retaliatory conduct against them within the community and at local public schools. They further request anonymity because revealing their identity would
also indirectly reveal the identities of the minor children named as Plaintiffs.”
The complaint, obtained by the Panhandle News Network, details that one child is homeschooled but participates in sports activities through the school system.
The other children attend elementary and high schools throughout the county.
At issue is a directive handed down in June from the state board of education directing county school systems to continue requiring students receive vaccinations before attending school.
Berkeley County Schools said it would continue to follow state code that requires children attending public and private school to show proof of immunization for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and hepatitis B unless proof of a medical exemption can be shown.
Earlier this year, Governor Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order that would require such an exemption be offered. In May, he offered guidance to county schools on how he thought the vaccination policy should be carried out. Under the policy adopted in June by the state board of education, there is no religious exemption.
Appearing this week on Panhandle Live on WEPM/WCST radio, Berkeley County Board of Education member Pat Murphy said, “I respect the parents’ right to appeal,” Murphy said, noting that he was speaking for himself, not necessarily for the rest of the board.
But he said, “I feel like we’re in the middle of a firing squad here, getting shots from all angles because we have the state board’s authority, we have the governor’s authority and we’re caught in the middle. So I’m glad it’s going to be resolved by an impartial judge.”
Following is the criminal complaint filed in Berkeley County August 28th, minus the identifying information listed in the “Parties” to the suit sections.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. Pursuant to W.Va. Code § 51-2-2, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter, because it is
a matter arising in equity that seeks injunctive and declaratory relief in accordance with
the EPRA, W.Va. Code § 35-1A-1(b)(1).
12. Venue is proper in Berkeley County, pursuant to W.Va. Code § 14-2-2, because the
Plaintiffs reside in Berkeley County and because, pursuant to W.Va. Code § 56-1-1, BCS
defendants reside and/or operate in Berkeley County.
13. Notice to State Defendants is not required under W.Va. Code § 55-17-3(a)(1) because the
action seeks injunctive relief on the basis of irreparable harm which would accrue to the
Plaintiff’s if the action was further delayed and which, therefore, relieves from Plaintiffs
their notice obligations under the statute.
FACTS
14. This case relates to attempts by the West Virginia and Berkeley County Boards of
Education to directly defy the duly authorized laws of the state of West Virginia and the
explicit Orders of its chief Executive, Governor Patrick Morrisey.
15. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has long held that education is a
fundamental right under the West Virginia Constitution. See Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va.
672, 707(1979). (“the mandatory requirements of ‘a thorough and efficient system of free
schools’ found in… the West Virginia Constitution, make education a fundamental,
constitutional right in this state.”); See also State v. Beaver, 248 W.Va. 177, 196, 887
S.E.2d 610, 629 (2022) (“education [is] a fundamental, constitutional right in this state”).
16. However, in 1937, a law was enacted compelling vaccination of public school children
within the State (the “compulsory vaccination law” or “CVL”). the CVL provides that
“No child or person may be admitted or received in any of the schools of the state…until
he or she has been immunized against chickenpox, hepatitis-b, measles, meningitis,
mumps, diphtheria, polio,, rubella, tetanus and whooping cough or produces a certificate
from the commissioner granting the child or person an exemption from the compulsory
immunization requirements of this section.” W.Va. Code § 16-3-4(c).
17. The only exemption provided for within the statute is medical, such that a child may be
exempt from the vaccination requirements only “upon sufficient medical evidence that
immunization is contraindicated or there exists a specific precaution to a particular
vaccine,” a request for which must be submitted with a certification from a licensed
physician stating the contraindication or specific precaution. Id. at § 4(h). The statute
contains no language which might provide for religious or conscientious based exemption
to compulsory school vaccinations.
18. Until May of 2023, West Virginia was a radical outlier among American states – one of
only five in the entire nation who did not recognize a religious liberty exemption from
compulsory vaccination law. However, in May of 2023, the State passed its Equal
Protection for Religion Act (“EPRA”), codified under W.Va. Code § 35-1A-1 (2023). The
law provides that “notwithstanding any other provision of law” no state action may:
i. Substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless applying the burden to
that person’s exercise of religion in a particular situation is essential to further a
compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest; nor
ii. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any conduct of reasonably
comparable risk; nor
iii. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than comparable conduct because of
alleged economic need or benefit.
19. The CVL constitutes another “provision of law.”
20. On January 14, 2025, Governor Patrick Morrisey, recognizing that many school districts
were continuing to refuse to recognize a religious or moral exemption, issued an
Executive Order enforcing and clarifying the EPRA’s authority to create a religious
and/or conscientious exemption to the compulsory vaccination law and, further, directing
the Bureau for Public Health, the State Health Officer, and “all officials and employees
under their authority” to submit a plan to enable and facilitate a statewide exemption to
the compulsory vaccination law on the basis of a “religious and moral objection”. See
Executive Order No. 7-25. Exhibit A.
21. In response, the West Virginia Department of Health officials properly implemented
Governor Morrisey’s Executive Order, and began issuing certificates of exemption from
the compulsory vaccination law.
22. The named Plaintiffs herein all duly received their religious exemption from mandatory
vaccination so that they could attend school.
23. Thereafter, Defendants West Virginia Board of Education, by and through its members
Nancy White, Victor Gabriel, F. Scott Rotruck, L. Paul Hardesty, Robert W. Dunlevey,
Christopher Stansbury, Deborah Sullivan, Gregory Wooten, and Cathy Justice, as well as
Superintendent Michele Blatt (collectively the “State Board Defendants”) issued a
directive, on or about June 11, 2025, to school districts in the state advising them to defy
the Governor’s Order by refusing to honor the religious/moral exemptions issued by the
State Health Officer and thereby barring religiously exempted children from attending
school. In their statement, State Board Defendants asserted that “The WVBE directed the
State Superintendent of Schools to notify all school districts to follow the law that has
been in effect since 1937 [the CVL],” thereby directly defying Governor Morrisey’s
Executive Order as well as the EPRA.
24. Defendant Berkeley County Board of Education (“BCS”), by and through its school
board members, Defendants Ronald Branch, Jacqueline Long, Melissa Power, Michael
Martin, Patrick Murphy, and Damon Wright, and its Superintendent, Ryan Saxe, is
following this illegal directive of the State Board Defendants, disregarding the
Governor’s Executive Order and excluding religiously/conscientiously exempted children
from Berkeley County Schools.
25. Each of the named Plaintiffs herein are devoutly religious Christians, whose families seek
spiritual guidance through prayer on all important matters of life, including on healthcare
decisions, medicines or other chemical/pharmacological products proposed to be put into
their bodies.
26. Each of the named Plaintiffs have chosen, after significant spiritual reflection, to forgo
some or all of the vaccines on the CVL as being contrary to religious guidance they have
received from the Holy Spirit.
27. These religious objections are far from foundationless, and, in fact, relate to a variety of
vaccination practices which would traditionally be considered objectionable to the
devoutly religious. For example, a number of the vaccines on the CVL were designed and
developed through use of aborted body parts – an inherently objectionable practice to
those who believe that abortion is an egregious sin before god, tantamount to murder.
28. Additionally, many of the CVL-required vaccines contain genetic and cellular material
derived from aborted fetuses, which would be injected directly into the bodies of the
child-Plaintiff’s named herein.1
29. More generally, vaccinations fundamentally alter a person’s immune system, thereby
modifying our natural human immune systems as God created them. While this does not
mean that Plaintiffs object to all medications of any kind, they seek out medication only
1 See e.g. FDA Package Insert for MMRII Vaccine, at p. 9, available at
https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines%2C%20blood%20%26%20biologics/published/Package-Insert-MeaslesMumps-and-Rubella-Virus-Vaccine-Live_2.pdf.
where intervention is absolutely necessary, only after significant prayer, and never
prophylactically or preemptively. The bible clearly provides that the body is God’s
temple and must be protected.
30. Each of the named Plaintiffs have successfully obtained religious/moral exemptions from
the Department of Health, per Governor Morrisey’s Executive Order 7-25, exempting
them from compliance with the CVL.
31. The named Plaintiffs, since the State Board’s directive, have all been prohibited, or, in a
couple cases, noticed that they will be prohibited within 30 days from the start of school,
from attending school or participating in athletics at any Berkeley County school by
Defendant BCS. BCS does so despite each Plaintiff having obtained a valid religious
exemption from the West Virginia Department of Health, and are, as a consequence,
being denied their fundamental Constitutional right to education.
32. The West Virginia Constitution guarantees to all state residents expansive religious
freedoms, including the right and freedom “to maintain their opinion in matters of
religion”, and “to profess and, by argument, maintain” their religious convictions, the
exercise of which shall “in nowise, affect, diminish or enlarge their civil capacities.”
Article 3-15 further guarantees to all state residents the freedom against being “enforced,
restrained, molested, or burthened… or otherwise suffer, on account of his religious
opinions or belief”. W.Va. Const. § 3-15. This provision builds on and increases similar
religious freedom protections set forth in the 1st Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
33. Article VII, § 5 of the West Virginia Constitution endows the Governor with “the chief
executive power,” and obligates him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It
further enshrines “the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty,” in its preamble,
and endeavors, with “constant reliance upon God…to promote, preserve and perpetuate
good government in the state of West Virginia, for the common welfare, freedom and
security of ourselves and our posterity.” W.Va. Const. pmbl. (1872).
34. West Virginia is one of the most religious states in America, with 77% of West Virginians
averring that “they believe in God with absolute certainty.”2
35. Following the passage of the EPRA, Governor Morrisey properly issued an executive
order designed to ensure the CVL complied with the requirements of the EPRA, without
which the CVL would plainly violate the same. See Exhibit A. Governor Morrisey’s
Executive Order brings West Virginia in line not just with the vast majority of American
States (45 out of 50), but, further, with West Virginia federal district courts’ own
interpretation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
36. Absent a religious exemption, the CVL would plainly and unequivocally violate the
EPRA because the CVL’s requirements fail to provide for the “least restrictive”
alternative for furthering a “compelling governmental interest.”
37. Though disease prevention/mitigation is a compelling government interest, the
requirements of the CVL neither accomplish these goals nor propose to do so in the least
restrict means available.
38. Infection diseases are not spread exclusively in schools, and, even assuming that the
vaccines required under the CVL all prevent transmission of the disease (which they
officially do not), compulsory vaccination requirements for the attendance of school
2 See Pew Research Center, How religious is your state?, available at www.pewreserach.org/facttank/2016/02/29/how-religious-is-your-state/?state=west-virginia.
would do absolutely nothing to prevent transmission in the broader community and
public spaces, where children and adults interact regularly and in close proximity with
each other.
39. Additionally, the majority of the vaccines currently included under the CVL provide, at
best, personal protection against illness or severity of illness, and do not prevent
transmission of their respective diseases at all – calling into question the entire public
health logic behind compulsory vaccinations. The pertussis vaccination, “aPV” – part of
the tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis vaccine triad (“DTaP” or “Tdap”) – has
demonstrated “an inability… to prevent transmission3
” by failing to control bacterial
numbers in the nose, thereby leading to increasing numbers of pertussis cases4
. The Polio
vaccine given in the United States, the Inactivated Polio Virus (“IPV”), “protects people
from polio disease but does not stop transmission of the virus.”5 The meningococcal
vaccine also does nothing to slow transmission or establish herd immunity, having “no
discernible effect on the carriage of the disease-causing meningococci…”6 The Hepatitis
B vaccine has never once been shown to be transmitted in a school setting.7 Tetanus is not
even contagious person to person.8
3 Hall J et al., Opposing effects of acellular and whole cell pertussis vaccines on Bordetella pertussis biofilm
formation, Siglec-F+ neutrophil recruitment and bacterial clearance in mouse nasal tissues, available at
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10849580/.
4 Esposito S et al., Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis
Vaccines, available at https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.01344/full.
5 See CDC Webpage, Polio Disease and Poliovirus Containment, available at https://www.cdc.gov/polioviruscontainment/diseaseandvirus/index.html.
6 See Marshall H, Mcmillan M. et al., Meningococcal B Vaccine and Meningococcal Carraige in Adolescents in
Australia, available at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1900236.
7 See CDC FOIA Response Regarding Hep B Vaccine, Exhibit D (“A search of our records failed to reveal any
documents… [revealing] transmission of Hepatitis B in an elementary, middle or high school setting.”).
8 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pink Book, chapter 21, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-21-tetanus.html.
40. Worse yet, certain vaccines included under the CVL actually increase the risk of
transmission. The varicella (chicken pox) vaccine is a live virus that can infect others for
up to six weeks after receipt. This is why, as the FDA explains, “transmission of the
varicella vaccine virus (Oka/Merck) resulting in varicella infection including
disseminated disease may occur between vaccine recipients (who develop or do not
develop a varicella-like rash) and contacts susceptible to varicella including healthy as
well as high-risk individuals” and that “due to concern for transmission of vaccine virus,
vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with
susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccinations.”9
41. Moreover, even if schools were, somehow, the only or primary vehicle by which students
might potentially be transmitted the infectious diseases allegedly prevented by CVLprescribed vaccinations, infringing on children’s fundamental Constitutional right to
attend public schools in West Virginia is not the least restrictive method to accomplish
this goal. For example, West Virginia could do what its surrounding states do: keep
unvaccinated and/or high risk children home when there is an outbreak.
42. The arbitrariness of West Virginia compulsory vaccination requirements is demonstrated
further by the fact that teachers, administrators, and other staff in public schools are not
required to comply with the CVL. As a result, many, if not most, of the adult employees
within the West Virginia school system have not received the full battery of vaccinations
required under the CVL vaccine schedule. This is largely because, prior to 1986, the
compulsory vaccine law in West Virginia set forth a significantly reduced vaccine
schedule.
9 See FDA package insert, VARIVAX, p. 3.
43. In 1986, however, a new law was passed – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
(“NCVIA”)– which provided abundant legal protections to vaccine manufacturers which
completely inoculated them from legal liability for vaccine injuries. It created a “nofault” compensation system for vaccine injured patients while conferring “substantial
liability protection” upon vaccine makers “in return for establishing the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program”. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1068, 1080, 566 U.S. 223
(2011). The Vaccine compensation Fund obtains its funding from an excise tax levied on
each vaccine dose administered, which is paid by either the vaccinated private citizen or
by the federal government when it buys the vaccines for free distribution under one of the
government’s health and welfare programs.10 Thus, the law provided immunity from
liability for vaccine makers in exchange for a compensation fund ultimately paid for –via
direct medical expenses or taxes – by the very citizens meant to be “protected” by the law
and at no actual cost to the manufacturers.
44. Unsurprisingly, following the passage of, the vaccination schedule exploded, resulting in
massive increases both the CDC’s own recommended vaccine schedule and West
Virginia’s CVL. The CDC went from recommending on three vaccines for seven illnesses
– two combination vaccines (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella)
and a polio vaccine – amounting to a total of 12 shots and 25 individual doses related to 8
diseases administered before age 18. Thereafter, however, that number exploded to 54
shots containing 70 individual doses related to 16 different diseases.11 West Virginia’s
own CVL mirrored these changes following 1986.
10 See Derry Ridgway, No-Fault Vaccine Insurance: Lessons from the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 24 J. H EALTH POL . POL’Y & L. 59, 62 (1999)
11 See CDC Recommended Vaccine Schedule 1986 vs. 2019, available at https://childrenshealthdefense.org/childhealth-topics/known-culprits/vaccines-culprit/cdc-recommended-vaccine-schedule-1986-vs-2019/.
45. Nevertheless, despite these (relatively suspect) changes to the vaccine schedules post1986, the state continues to demonstrate the arbitrariness of its CVL by permitting
unvaccinated teachers and staff to roam freely throughout our state schools and
intermingle with schoolchildren. Defendants further permit the public, including
countless numbers of unvaccinated citizens, to access school campuses during a wide
variety of community-wide events where large crowds gather in close proximity,
including sporting events, school plays, and other extracurricular events open to the
public. These allowances serve to undermine the very rationale purportedly invoked by
the CVL’s mandates.
46. Moreover, official federal government records indicate a considerable amount of general,
non-exempt non-compliance rates for Kindergartners attending in-person classes in West
Virginia. For example, according to CDC records for the 2022-23 school year, as many as
4.4% of West Virginia kindergartners fail to comply with the CVL.12
47. Plaintiffs’ argument has already found support in Federal Courts. Most notably, this
position was recently upheld by the Northern District Court of West Virginia, when Chief
Judge Thomas S. Kleeh issued a preliminary injunction and Order in favor of a student
challenging the CVL on 1st Amendment grounds, holding that State Officials had “failed
to demonstrate W.Va. Code § 16-3-4 is narrowly tailored to achieve the identified
compelling state interest.” Exhibit B. See also Bosage v. Edney, 669 F. Supp. 3d. 598, 625
(S.D. Miss. 2023) (holding that Mississippi’s mandatory vaccination statutory scheme,
12 See Centers for Disease Control, Vaccination Coverage and Selected Vaccines and Exemption Rates Among
Children in Kindergarten – United States, 2022-23 School Year, p 1220, available at
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/pdfs/mm7245a2-H.pdf (last viewed 8/24/25).
which allowed medical exemptions but denied religious exemptions, violated the 1st
Amendment).
48. Moreover, West Virginia state courts have also begun recognizing the validity of the
arguments asserted by Plaintiff. In A.G. et al v. W.Va. Board of Ed. Et al. (Case No CC41-2025-C-230), the Raleigh County Circuit Court issued a preliminary injunction
following a request from the plaintiffs who were, as here, denied access to local public
schools by the relevant county board of education. In doing so, Judge Froble found that
Plaintiffs had demonstrated that: (a) the EPRA “plainly applies” to the CVL; (b) “the
CVL constitutes a substantial burden on the Plaintiffs exercise of religion”; (c) “the
burden placed upon the plaintiffs religious exercise is not essential to furthering a
compelling government interest,”; and (d) “defendants have also failed to satisfy the least
restrictive means test.” The Raleigh County Circuit Court further found that the CVL
violates a separate requirement of the EPRA by “treat[ing] religious conduct more
restrictively than any conduct of reasonably comparable risk.” See 8/12/25 Order
Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Setting Permanent Injunction Hearing.
Exhibit C.
49. Plaintiffs now seek immediate and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief such that they can continue exercising their fundamental Constitutional right to
education while this matter is adjudicated. They further seek a declaratory judgment from
this Court holding
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION FOR RELIGION ACT BY ALL
NAMED DEFENDANTS
50. The EPRA provides, at W.Va. Code § 35-1A-1(b)(1), that “a person whose exercise of
religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, in
violation of this article may assert such violation or impending violation, including
against the state or its political subdivisions, as a claim or as a defense in any judicial or
administrative proceeding: Provided, that relief is limited to injunctive or declaratory
relief and reimbursement of costs and reasonable attorney fees.”
51. Defendants actions in attempting to enforce and interpret the CVL in conflict with the
EPRA, in refusing to recognize religious exemptions propounded by the State Health
Department, and in refusing to comply with the Governor’s Exeuctive Order 7-25, treat
Plaintiffs’ religious conduct in seeking exemption from the CVL than other conduct of
reasonably comparable risk, such as the State allowing other students secular/medical
exemptions, or outright unexempted non-compliance, in plain violation of W.Va. Code §
35-1A-1(a)(2).
52. Courts are instructed to not inquire into the validity or plausibility of a person’s beliefs,
and to, instead, determine whether “the beliefs professed are sincerely held and whether
they are, in [the believer’s] own scheme of things, religious.” United State v. Seeger, 380
U.S. 163, 185 (1965). The “guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are
shared by all of the members of a religious sect.” Thomas v. Review Bd. Of Ind. Emp’t
Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 715-16 (1981).
53. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit them from obtaining the
vaccinations required under the CVL, and those beliefs have been substantially burdened
by Defendants in refusing Plaintiff’s access to public education services in Berkeley
County, West Virginia, despite Plaintiffs full compliance with the requirements for
obtaining religious exemptions in West Virginia.
54. Defendants state interest in promoting childhood vaccinations in schools cannot be so
compelling as to allow an exemption for secular/medical reasons – or functional reasons
like general nonenforcement – while simultaneously forbidding an exemption on religious
grounds.
55. Defendants’ state interest in mitigating the spread of infection disease by denying
unvaccinated children access to public education is not the least restricted means to meet
its stated goals, particularly in light of the fact that unvaccinated children could be asked
to quarantine during breakouts, adult staff/faculty who come into contact with the
students are not similarly required to obtain vaccinations, and no effort is made to ensure
that students do not come into contact with unvaccinated individuals in any other area of
life, including even school sanctioned events like sporting events, plays, field trips, or
any other activity where school children and the greater public interact.
56. As a result of all of the above, Defendants have violated the EPRA by refusing to honor
Plaintiff’s duly obtained religious exemptions and prohibiting Plaintiff’s and their
children from attending public school in Berkeley County on the basis of their
religious/moral convictions.
COUNT II: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, PERMANENT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
57. Plaintiffs allege that, as applied by the Defendants, the CVL violates and substantially
burdens their religious liberties and rights under the EPRA to not vaccinate, or to not be
vaccinated, as a condition of enrolling in Berkeley County Public Schools.
58. Plaintiffs allege that they will be irreparably harmed unless this Court enjoins Defendants
from enforcing the CVL against Plaintiffs.
59. Plaintiffs have no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy at law to prevent Defendants
from unlawfully enforcing the CVL against them in violation of their religious liberties
and right to education under the West Virginia Constitution and the EPRA.
60. Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate.
61. Moreover, preliminary injunctive relief pending adjudication on the merits is appropriate
pursuant to State ex rel. McGraw v. Imperial Mktg., 196 W.Va. 346, 352 n.8 (1996)
because, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have demonstrated:
i. That there is a likelihood of irreparable harm insomuch as Plaintiffs and/or their
children are actively losing time with and access to education, athletics, and other
extracurriculars that cannot later be returned to them;
ii. That there is little or no likelihood of harm to Defendants caused by the injunction
insomuch as it would amount to nothing more than Defendants honoring the
religious exemption mandated by West Virginia law and managed without
incident by 45 other American states;
iii. That Plaintiff has a clear likelihood of success on the merits.; and
iv. The public has a clear interest in seeing that religious freedoms and the duly
enacted laws of the State of West Virginia are enforced.
62. Plaintiffs further allege that, pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a Temporary
Restraining Order without Notice is appropriate because of the irreparable injury which
will result, and which is already resulting, from Plaintiffs’ being denied access to county
public educational services, and that, because school has already started, such irreparable
harm will continue being inflicted on Plaintiffs before Defendants can be heard in
opposition to the instant Petition.
COUNT III: REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
63. Based on the above, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to W.Va. Code
§ 55-13-1. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants
as to their legal rights and duties with respect to whether West Virginia’s CVL, which
allows for secular but not religious exemptions, violates the EPRA.
64. The case is presently justiciable because the Plaintiffs’ rights are being affected by
improper enforcement of the EPRA and the CVL, which is currently being utilized
against Plaintiffs to exclude them or their children from partaking in education at
Berkeley County Schools.
65. Declaratory Relief and a corresponding declaration of rights as to the EPRA is therefore
appropriate to resolve this controversy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, pursuant to W.Va. Code §§ 55-13-1 and 35-1A-1, Plaintiff prays upon
this court that:
1. A declaratory judgment be issued by this Court declaring that the “no religious
accommodation” policy of the CVL violates the EPRA as applied to these Plaintiffs;
2. A temporary restraining order be issued immediately restraining Defendants from
enforcing the CVL absent Executive Order 7-25’s religious exemptions;
3. A hearing be set withing 14 days of the date of said Temporary Restraining Order for the
taking of evidence on Plaintiff’s request for Preliminary Injunction;
4. Thereafter, as the Court deems appropriate, a permanent injunction issue prohibiting
Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and any other acting on their behalf from
implementing and enforcing W.Va. Code § 16-3-4 against Plaintiffs without providing a
religious exemption or honoring on provided by the State Department of Health.
5. Plaintiffs be granted compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to
W.Va. Code § 35-1A-1.
Respectfully,
PLAINTIFFS
BY COUNSEL:
/s/Christian J. Riddell
Christian J. Riddell, #12202
329 S. Queen Street
Martinsburg, WV 25401
(304) 267-3949
