Krystle Perry v. Stacy Marteney

── Krystle Perry v. Stacy Marteney ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-2132 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/08/2026 Pg: 1 of 38 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2132 KRYSTLE PERRY, individually and on behalf of their minor child K.P.; ANTHONY PERRY, individually and on behalf of their minor child K.P., Plaintiffs – Appellees, v. STACY MARTENEY, in her official capacity as the Virtual Learning Coordinator of the Upshur County Virtual School; CHRISTINE MILLER, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Upshur County School District, Defendants – Appellants, and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY OF UPSHUR; DR. MATTHEW CHRISTIANSEN, in his official capacities as the State Health Officer and Commissioner of the Bureau of Public Health; DOUG CIPOLETTI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the West Virginia Virtual School Academy; BRYAN HOYLMAN, in his official capacity as Chair of the Board of Directors of Mountain State Learning Solutions, Inc. d/b/a West Virginia Virtual Academy, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:24−cv−00018−TSK) Argued: January 27, 2026 Decided: April 8, 2026 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2132 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/08/2026 Pg: 2 of 38 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee joined. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion. ARGUED: William M. Lorensen, BOWLES RICE, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Christopher David Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Robert J. Kent, Ryan S. Moore, Leigh Anne Wilson, BOWLES RICE, LLP, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Aaron Siri, Elizabeth A. Brehm, Walker Moller, SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2132 Doc: 65 Filed: 04/08/2026 Pg: 3 of 38 WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Anthony and Krystle Perry brought this suit on behalf of their daughter to obtain a religious exemption from West Virginia’s compulsory vaccination law. Religious exemptions are not available under state law, but the Perrys claim they are required by the First Amendment. After finding that the Perrys were likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim, the district court granted them a preliminary injunction. We now reverse the district court’s decision to grant preliminary relief. Rights, as important as they are, do not swing free and clear of the larger social compact. We live in a society that accords its citizens enormous benefits. In return, states can, in a measured way, require certain exactions and accommodations to the broader social interest. The police power of the states “embrace[s], at least, such reasonable regulations . . . as will protect the public health and the public safety.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905). West Virginia’s compulsory vaccination law does exactly that. It is a legitimate exercise of the state’s power to protect the health and well- being of school children. Striking the law down would undermine not just our system of dual sovereignty, but also a long line of Supreme Court precedent.