How should courts determine whether someone sincerely holds a religious belief? That question took center stage Tuesday, September 15, as the Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments in a former Dordt University nursing student’s religious-discrimination lawsuit.
According to a transcript of the video livestream of the hearing in Spirit Lake, attorneys for Andrew Perry and the Sioux Center university disagreed over how closely courts may examine religious sincerity, the role of family pressure in Perry’s vaccination objection, and Dordt’s process for considering religious exemptions.
Justices questioned both sides, pressing Perry’s attorney about conflicting evidence and Dordt’s attorney about whether the university’s exemption criteria risked religious discrimination.
The court took the case under submission without announcing a decision.
Background of the Dispute
The case stems from COVID-19 vaccination requirements imposed by healthcare facilities where Dordt nursing students completed clinical rotations. Dordt has said it “does not have and has never had” a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Nursing students working in outside healthcare facilities were subject to those partners’ policies.
According to appellate briefs available on the Iowa courts website, Perry sued in June 2022 under the Iowa Civil Rights Act after Dordt denied his religious exemption request.
Following a two-day trial in June 2025, Sioux County District Court Judge Robert Tiefenthaler ruled in Dordt’s favor, finding Perry’s exemption request was not based on a sincerely held religious belief. Perry appealed.
Perry argues that Dordt improperly evaluated his beliefs and favored certain religious practices while granting an exemption to another student. Dordt argues that the evidence supported the district court’s finding about Perry’s sincerity.
How Should Religious Sincerity be Evaluated?
Perry’s attorney, Alan Ostergren, argued that courts must approach religious-sincerity questions with considerable restraint. He said close scrutiny risks crossing into judgments about the validity of a person’s faith.
“And yes, you have to prove a sincere religious belief, and you prove it by saying, this is my religious belief,” Ostergren said.
Ostergren maintained that Perry had explained his objection through his understanding of Scripture. He argued that inconsistent conduct or religious observance should not automatically strip someone of protection against discrimination.
The chief justice questioned how that approach would allow a trial judge to consider evidence contradicting a person’s stated reasons for seeking an exemption.
“Tell me, how does a district court judge hold a trial? Why not just say you win?” she asked.
Ostergren responded that a claimant would still have to prove discrimination occurred. He argued that courts must limit their inquiry into religious belief to avoid undermining the protections the law provides.
Dordt attorney Nicholas McGrath countered that determining whether someone actually holds a belief is different from deciding whether the belief is religiously correct.
“Sincerity is just a very narrow question of whether the person who is asserting the belief actually holds that belief. There’s no doctrinal interpretation. There’s no evaluation of how central the belief is to the particular religion,” McGrath said.
McGrath acknowledged that establishing sincerity ordinarily involves a low threshold. He argued, however, that the district court heard conflicting evidence, evaluated Perry’s credibility, and reached a finding the Supreme Court should uphold.
Family Influence and Conflicting Evidence
Perry’s communications with family members and university personnel were another focus of the hearing.
McGrath pointed to an email in which Perry said he personally had no problem with vaccination, along with communications concerning his parents’ opposition and the potential loss of financial support.
“The only obstacle that’s in his way is his mother’s threat of financial abandonment. And it’s clear that that is driving his decision-making,” McGrath argued. Then one of the justices pushed back on McGrath by saying, “That might have been part of it. But he also testified pretty strongly that it was his own personal conviction based on his beliefs.”
Perry’s attorney, Alan Ostergren, defended family influence on faith and disputed using a text obtained later to justify the earlier denial.
“So first of all, lots of people hold their religious beliefs because of what their parents told them. That’s very common. Second of all, that text was never in Dordt’s possession when it made the decision to deny Andrew the exemption,” Ostergren said.
McGrath countered that evidence uncovered during litigation could help determine whether Perry sincerely held the belief he asserted. The attorneys disagreed over how that evidence should factor into the discrimination claim.
According to the hearing transcript, Dordt’s review process requested a denominational statement and documentation of vaccination exemptions during kindergarten through 12th grade. Justices questioned those criteria, noting that a person’s religious beliefs can develop over time or differ from a denomination’s teachings.
McGrath maintained that the district court’s finding about Perry’s sincerity resolved his claim regardless of those concerns. Ostergren argued that Dordt’s process improperly favored some religious practices over others.
The Supreme Court will determine whether the district court’s judgment stands.
Reporting for this article draws on a transcript of the September 15 oral-argument video livestream and three appellate briefs available on the Iowa courts website: Perry’s opening brief, Dordt’s response, and Perry’s reply brief.
