It is of national importance for this Court to determine
if the sincerity of people's religious objection to vaccination
should be tested and, if so, to define the level and manner of
sincerity "testing" of a person's religious beliefs asserted
in their religious exemption to vaccination.
In the present case, the State Courts' rulings involved
an interpretation or application of the U.S. Constitution ,
which was either in error, or not sufficiently respected.
This trial occurred during the beginning of the Covid-19
pandemic and prior to the development of the Covid-19
vaccine; however, the constitutional question of the
sincerity of people's religious exemptions has dramatically
expanded into society's employment sector, within families
(between divorced and married parents), and anticipated
to be within the public school system, imminently. Thus,
Petitioner poses the following questions to this Court:

Whether Petitioner's fundamental right to freedom
of religion, and exemption from vaccination, was violated
when the trial Court applied a "sincerity" test to
Petitioner's religious beliefs, and did so, after the close of
testimony pursuant to New Jersey Rule of Evidence 512?

Whether the trial Court erred in ignoring Petitioner's
medical exemption, which was testified to and authored
by her medical vaccine safety expert at trial?

Whether Petitioner's fundamental right to freedom of religion, and exemption from vaccination, was violated when the trial Court applied a 'sincerity' test to Petitioner's religious beliefs