It’s really quite a powerful ruling too. I’m not a legal scholar but it appears the judge essentially says don’t need to prove their right to a religious exemption since it’s guaranteed by the Constitution. At least that how I interpret what he wrote here: “The question presented by this case is not whether plaintiffs and other individuals are entitled to a religious exemption from the state's workplace vaccination requirement," he wrote. "Instead, the question is whether the state's summary imposition of 2.61 conflicts with plaintiffs' and other individuals' federally protected right to seek a religious accommodation from their individual employers. The answer to this question is clearly yes. Plaintiffs have established that 2.61 conflicts with longstanding federal protections for religious beliefs and that they and others will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief."