A New York judge has denied a Depew High School senior’s request to return to class after she was removed from school in a dispute over a meningitis vaccine booster, marking a major setback in a case that has drawn local attention for months and raised broader questions about public health rules, medical exemptions, and how courts are handling similar cases.
In her WKBW-TV report, Taylor Epps details the latest ruling involving Depew student Kayci Rae, who has been out of school since October after not receiving a second meningitis shot following what her family says was a bad reaction to the first dose.
The family sued the district after her medical exemption request was denied, but Epps reports that a state Supreme Court judge ruled against Kayci’s immediate return, siding with the district’s public-health position.
It is the kind of case that can quickly become polarized, but the report shows why it has resonated: it is not being framed by Kayci’s lawyer as a blanket anti-vaccine fight, but as a dispute over one booster, one student, and a claimed adverse reaction that her family says should have been treated differently.
At the same time, the judge’s decision makes clear that courts can and do give broad weight to disease-prevention rules in schools, even when the individual circumstances are emotionally compelling.
A Senior Year Put On Hold
Epps, who has been following the case since October, reports that Kayci Rae has now spent about four months out of school because she did not have the second meningitis vaccine required by the district.
Anchor Jeff Russo introduces the story in the WKBW segment as a legal setback in a case the station has tracked closely, explaining that Kayci’s family sought court intervention after the district denied a medical exemption request tied to her reaction to the first dose.
That detail matters because it explains why this case has drawn sympathy from people who might otherwise assume it is just another routine vaccine-compliance dispute.
According to Epps’ reporting, Kayci’s attorney, Chad Davenport, says the issue has had real personal consequences beyond paperwork and legal filings.
He told WKBW that missing out on senior-year moments has been “terrible” for her, and he emphasized that she wants the opportunity to make those memories.
In a striking detail from Epps’ interview, Davenport says Kayci has been allowed to attend some school-related events, including Senior Night, but cannot attend school during the regular instructional day.
That contrast is one of the most talked-about parts of the case, and Epps highlights it clearly.
When Epps asks whether Kayci can attend events but not school, Davenport answers bluntly: “She just can’t go to school,” adding that from the morning until the afternoon she is treated as a public-health threat, but not outside those hours.
That argument is obviously designed to expose what the family sees as inconsistency, and whether people agree with it or not, it is easy to understand why it feels frustrating from their perspective.
What The Judge Said In Denying The Request
The most important part of Epps’ report is the judge’s reasoning, and she includes direct language from the ruling.
As she explains, the judge wrote that the petitioner has the right to refuse the vaccine, but does not have the right to attend school unvaccinated and risk exposure of meningitis to classmates, teachers, and staff, “no matter how arguably small,” adding that one transmission is too much and denying the petition.
That language shows the court was not treating the case as a balancing test that came out narrowly in Kayci’s favor or even as a close call on emergency relief.
Instead, the judge appears to have treated the public-health concern as controlling, even if the risk of transmission was argued to be small.
Epps also reports another part of the ruling that has added fuel to the family’s frustration: the judge noted a path for Kayci to return after graduation once she becomes an adult in June.
Davenport, speaking to WKBW, argues that this creates a contradiction, saying that under the judge’s view she can later return and no longer be considered a public-health threat once she is 18.
That timing issue has become a central point in the family’s criticism of the decision, and it is easy to see why. To them, the ruling does not just keep her out of school; it does so during the exact stretch of time they say matters most for a senior.
The judge, however, also wrote that delaying completion of the senior year or replacing it in a non-social setting like homeschooling does not rise to the level of immediate and irreparable harm required for the relief they sought.
That is a legal standard point, not just a policy opinion, and it helps explain why the court may have denied the request even while recognizing the impact on Kayci’s final year.
A Broader Pattern Of Conflicting Rulings
One reason this case has stayed in the news is that, according to Davenport, other students in similar situations have received different outcomes in court.
Epps reports that he represents several other clients and says some were able to return to school, including in a similar case in Nassau County and another in Williamsville.
Davenport tells Epps that even judges in the same courthouse, “directly across the hall from each other,” have reached different conclusions.
That is a powerful line, and it speaks to a problem people often notice in fast-moving legal disputes involving schools and medical issues: the law may be the same on paper, but outcomes can vary depending on the judge, the record, the emergency posture of the case, and how the arguments are framed.
Davenport calls this judicial bias in Epps’ report, while also insisting that the law itself is clear and should produce a different result.
The judge, on the other hand, reportedly took issue with the evidence Davenport submitted, with Epps noting that the court described some of the medical data as cherry-picked and misinformation.
Davenport pushes back on that characterization in the WKBW segment, saying the court misunderstood how long the shot is actually effective.
That exchange is important because it shows this case is not just about a rule and an exception request; it is also about competing interpretations of medical evidence and what a court is willing to credit on an emergency application.
In cases like this, once a judge signals distrust of one side’s evidence, the road back gets harder.
The Legal Fight Is Not Over Yet
Despite the ruling, Epps reports that Davenport is not done.
When she asks what comes next, he says he plans to write back to the judge to explain what he sees as problems in the decision, and he also says he is evaluating other options, including possible federal court litigation over what he believes is a civil-rights violation.
Davenport also says a motion for reconsideration is likely before an appeal is pursued.
That is a familiar legal path in cases like this, especially when the family and attorney believe the court misunderstood key facts or misapplied the law.
Davenport also emphasizes that Kayci is otherwise fully vaccinated and says the issue is not broad opposition to vaccines but concern about another bad reaction to a meningitis booster.
That distinction is a major part of the family’s public argument, and it likely matters both in court and in public opinion.
Meanwhile, Epps notes that the district had not yet responded to her request for comment on the latest ruling, though it had previously said school districts are required to prohibit unvaccinated students from attending public school.
That prior district position is important because it shows the school system is not presenting this as a discretionary choice unique to Depew, but as a legal compliance issue under state rules.
Why This Case Is Drawing So Much Attention
What makes this story stick is not just the vaccine dispute itself, but the fact that it is happening in the final months of a student’s senior year, when time is not replaceable in the same way it might be earlier in school.
Epps captures that tension well by showing both sides of the case: a lawyer arguing that a student is being unfairly shut out despite attending events, and a court insisting that even a small meningitis transmission risk is too much in a school environment.
There is also a broader issue here that deserves attention, and WKBW’s reporting points to it without overstating it: families often assume that if they have a doctor concern or a reaction history, a medical exemption will be straightforward.
But in reality, school vaccine rules, exemption standards, and court review can be rigid, technical, and surprisingly unforgiving.
That does not automatically mean the district is wrong or the family is right.
It does mean these disputes can become deeply personal while still being decided on legal standards that feel impersonal, especially standards like “irreparable harm” and judicial deference to public-health policy.
The result is a case where both realities can exist at once: the court can view itself as protecting public health, while the family experiences the ruling as a devastating and unfair loss.
A Decision With Consequences Beyond One Case
Epps’ report makes clear this ruling may not be the final word for Kayci Rae, but it is a significant one.
For now, the court’s decision means she remains out of the classroom during a period her family says she can never get back, even as her legal team prepares the next move.
And whether this case is ultimately reversed, narrowed, or upheld, it is already serving as a local example of how uneven and emotionally charged school vaccine litigation can become.
The legal debate here will continue in briefs and motions, but the human part is much simpler: a student wants to finish senior year with her classmates, a district says it must follow vaccine rules, and a judge has sided – at least for now – with the district’s public-health argument.
That is why this story has continued to resonate.
As Epps’ reporting shows, it is not just about a booster shot or a single court order. It is about how institutions weigh risk, how families experience those decisions, and what happens when the clock of a school year keeps moving while a case is still being fought.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
