US - Ninth Circuit

Source: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf
Discussion: https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/breaking-vaccine-mandate-reckoning

Summary:

Friday, June 7th: The Ninth Circuit The court's ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho suggests that if the COVID-19 vaccines are shown not to prevent transmission, only reduce symptoms for the recipient, then officials who forced them on individuals as a condition of keeping their jobs, staying in school, etc., may find themselves in the legal crosshairs.

The lawsuit, filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individual plaintiffs, alleged that LAUSD's vaccine mandate violated their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccine, unlike traditional vaccines, does not prevent transmission or provide immunity, making it more akin to a medical treatment than a public health measure.

Note: The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consists of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals along with district and bankruptcy courts in the 15 federal judicial districts that comprise the circuit, and associated administrative units that provide various court services. Ninth Circuit Districts

1. Alaska

2. Arizona

3. Central District of California

4. Eastern District of California

5. Northern District of California

6. Southern District of California

7. Guam

8. Hawaii

9. Idaho

10. Montana

11. Nevada

12. Northern Mariana Islands

13. Oregon

14. Eastern District of Washington
15. Western District of Washington

Details:

The Ninth Circuit panel revived a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees. The 2-1 ruling overturned a California federal court's dismissal of the case, potentially setting the stage for significant implications for vaccine manufacturers and entities that enforced mandatory vaccination policies.

In its decision, the Ninth Circuit majority held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's 1905 ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a mandatory smallpox vaccination law. The panel emphasized that Jacobson's rationale was based on the vaccine's ability to prevent the spread of disease. In contrast, the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine primarily mitigates symptoms for the recipient without effectively preventing transmission.

The court stressed that at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiff's allegations must be accepted as true. If proven, these allegations would distinguish the COVID-19 vaccine from the circumstances in Jacobson, potentially rendering the district court's reliance on that precedent misplaced.

The dissenting judge argued that the case should be dismissed as moot since LAUSD had recently rescinded its vaccine mandate. However, the majority found that LAUSD's history of withdrawing and reinstating vaccination policies in response to litigation suggested that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied, allowing the case to proceed.

The Ninth Circuit's decision could have far-reaching consequences for vaccine manufacturers, government officials, and employers who implemented mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. If the plaintiffs' allegations are substantiated, it could call into question the legal justification for such mandates and potentially expose these entities to liability.

However, the decision focused on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the school district's policy. It did not definitively rule on monetary liability for individual officials. Separate state laws govern when government employees or entities can be sued for damages.

As the case moves forward in Federal Court, it will be closely watched by legal experts, public health officials, and citizens alike. The outcome of this seminal court decision will obviously have significant implications