U.S. Court of Appeals rules COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated fundamental rights, failed to prevent transmission, and therefore forced a medical procedure on individuals.

Los Angeles, CA – In a June 7, 2024 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling in a high-profile case involving the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for its employees. The case, which has garnered significant attention, was brought forward by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. and several individual plaintiffs, challenging the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate.

The plaintiffs in this case include the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., California Educators for Medical Freedom (CEMF), and several individual LAUSD employees who opposed the vaccine mandate. The defendants are LAUSD employees and Board members, all named in their official capacities.

The lawsuit initially began when LAUSD implemented a vaccine mandate requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 15, 2021, eliminating previous testing options. This policy faced immediate backlash, leading to a lawsuit filed by CEMF. The plaintiffs argued that the mandate violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights, particularly their substantive due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The plaintiffs contended that the COVID-19 vaccine should not be classified as a "traditional" vaccine, which typically prevents disease transmission or provides immunity. Instead, they argued that the COVID-19 vaccine merely mitigates symptoms, making it akin to a medical treatment rather than a preventive measure. This distinction, they claimed, meant that the mandate interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.

The district court initially dismissed the case, citing that the plaintiffs' claims were ‘moot’ or ‘not ripe’ for adjudication. The court reasoned that since LAUSD had introduced a testing alternative before enforcing the mandate, there was no immediate threat of injury.

Additionally, the court held that the vaccine mandate did not implicate any fundamental rights and that LAUSD had a legitimate governmental interest in implementing the mandate to reduce COVID-19 symptoms and prevent severe disease and death among employees.

The district court initially referenced Jacobson v. Massachusetts to justify LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) is a landmark Supreme Court case that upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.

The case arose when Henning Jacobson refused a smallpox vaccination during an outbreak, arguing it infringed on his personal liberties. The Court ruled that individual freedoms could be overridden for the public's health and safety, emphasizing the government's power to enact health regulations during epidemics.

However, the appeals court found the application of Jacobson v Massachusetts inappropriate in the district courts ruling.

Unlike smallpox, where the vaccine prevents disease spread, the plaintiffs alleged the COVID-19 vaccines primarily reduce symptom severity rather than transmission, making the mandate akin to "forced medical treatment" for individual benefit rather than a public health measure.

The appeals court therefore found that the district court “erred in holding that Jacobson extends beyond its public health rationale—government’s power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern “forced medical treatment” for the recipient’s benefit.”

The Appeals Court also found that the district court had erred in its judgment in determining the case was moot despite LAUSD's reversal of its policy after litigation commenced. The appeals court emphasized that LAUSD's history of implementing and then retracting the mandate suggested a likelihood of re-imposing such a policy, thus keeping the controversy alive.

Appeals court Judge R. Nelson asserted that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively prevent the spread of the virus, distinguishing it from traditional vaccines. This differentiation was crucial in determining that the mandate could interfere with the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, thus warranting a higher level of scrutiny than the rational basis review applied by the district court.

In separate concurring opinions, Judges Nelson and Collins highlighted that recent Supreme Court rulings necessitate recognizing the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment when the compulsory measure is for the individual's health benefit rather than the public's. They also noted the need to revisit the district court’s stance on sovereign immunity for LAUSD in light of recent legal developments.

The Appeals Court's decision remands the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the higher scrutiny applicable to the plaintiffs' claims.

You can read the court ruling at the link below.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55908/22-55908-2024-06-07.html