Mandatory vaccination v. Conscientious Objection: A Comparative Analysis between the US and the European Approach

The development of vaccines and their delivery has been a key turning point in the fight against COVID-19, and it has allowed life to return to normal as soon as a high level of immunization had been achieved. However, a new legal challenge is whether vaccination can be mandatory, and in which settings, and whether an individual can refuse vaccination for various reasons. In the view of law and religion scholars, the focus is on claims for faith-based exemptions. In multicultural societies, there is a huge number of individuals or groups objecting to vaccination for non-medical reasons, putting at risk the achievement of the so-called herd-immunity. The aim of this paper is to analyze conscientious claims against vaccine mandates in the US and in the European responses, to compare various judicial responses and of the evolution of the standards of review adopted, and to investigate the impact of new legal challenges on the protection of religious freedom, with a view to exploring new predictable trajectories