First Amendment Free Exercise Clause; Whether defendant-employer (a private company) was a “state actor”; Whether defendant was serving a “traditionally exclusive governmental function”; Whether the government’s & defendant’s actions were “so entwined” as to amount to a “collective state action”; Whether the government “compelled” defendant to deny plaintiffs' religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination

The court held that defendant-employer (Smucker’s) did not qualify as a “state actor” for purposes of a First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claim, and that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs-employees’ suit. During the COVID-19 epidemic, Smucker’s, a federal contractor, followed President Biden’s order mandating vaccination for all unexempted employees of federal contractors. Plaintiffs applied for religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate. Smucker’s denied the exemptions, and they sued the company under the First Amendment’s free-exercise guarantee. To be sued under the Free Exercise Clause, Smucker’s had to have acted as a “state actor.” To determine this, the court first considered whether Smucker’s service involved a “traditional governmental function” and held that it did not where its underlying service, “making jam” is not a government function. The court then considered whether the government’s and defendant’s actions were “so entwined” as to amount to a “collective state action[.]” It held that there was no such relationship where “Smucker’s has not partnered, conspired, or entered into a ‘joint venture[]’ with federal officials[,]’” nor did it base its denial of the exemptions “using federal officials’ assistance.” Federal contracts alone are insufficient to create the necessary entwinement. Lastly, the court considered whether the government “compelled” Smucker’s to deny the exemptions, or “offered it ‘such significant encouragement . . . that [its] choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State[.]’” The court noted that this inquiry typically is considered in situations where plaintiffs are trying to sue the government and use a private entity’s actions to connect the government to the suit. Here, Smucker’s was being sued, and the government only “told Smucker’s to grant religious exemptions to those legally entitled to them, and let Smucker’s decide on its own who qualified." The court concluded that “Smucker’s did not become a state actor merely by complying with a generally applicable law.” Affirmed.