What 9th Circuit Ruling Reinstating Challenge to LAUSD's Employee Vaccine Mandate Means

[Elderberry]

RedState by Jennifer Van Laar 6/8/2024

In a split decision, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Friday afternoon reversing the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) employees challenging the district's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The suit was remanded back to the District Court level, where it will proceed toward trial.

    On the merits, the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), stretching it beyond its public health rationale. We vacate the district court’s order dismissing this claim and remand for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.

There are some pretty big takeaways from this ruling that could lead to ripple effects in other lawsuits, especially if the evidence at trial bears out what is in the pleadings and the court or a jury finds that evidence persuasive.

KEY POINTS
•   Plaintiffs argue that what's commonly known as the COVID-19 vaccine isn't a vaccine at all (because it doesn't prevent transmission), but is a therapeutic, so it cannot be mandated by law.
•   At the U.S. District Court level, a judge ruled that a 1905 Supreme Court ruling (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) related to mandatory smallpox vaccination allowed the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
•   The 9th Circuit panel ruled that, taking the Plaintiff's pleadings as true (which they must at this point in the proceedings), Jacobson does not apply and that employees cannot be forced to receive "treatment" they don't want to receive.
•   The ruling rejected LAUSD's claim that the suit is moot since the district had rescinded its mandate two weeks after oral arguments in this appeal went very poorly for the district, and gave a detailed timeline of LAUSD's continued attempts to manipulate the legal proceedings.
To fully appreciate LAUSD's manipulative tactics, you have to understand the timeline.
•   March 4, 2021: LAUSD institutes an employee vaccine mandate, telling employees in a memo they would be notified when it was their turn to get the vaccine and making no allowance for exemptions or alternatives such as COVID testing
•   March 17, 2021: LAUSD employees opposed to vaccination file suit
•   March 18, 2021: LAUSD issues a "clarifying" memo allowing employees to COVID test in lieu of being vaccinated
•   LAUSD files motion to dismiss lawsuit as moot
•   July 27, 2021: U.S. District Court judge dismisses lawsuit without prejudice
•   August 13, 2021: LAUSD reinstates vaccine mandate
•   November 3, 2021: Lawsuit challenging mandate is refiled with additional plaintiffs
•   September 2, 2022: U.S. District Court Judge Dale S. Fischer dismisses lawsuit with prejudice, awards costs to LAUSD
•   November, 2022: Plaintiffs appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
•   September 14, 2023: Oral arguments held before 9th Circuit panel on appeal; LAUSD attorney Connie Michaels asks Plaintiff's counsel after arguments go poorly for her, "What are you going to do when they [LAUSD] rescind the mandate?"
•   September 26, 2023: LAUSD board votes to rescind vaccine mandate
•   October 4, 2023: Counsel for LAUSD argues employee lawsuit is moot because mandate has been rescinded

More: https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2024/06/08/huge-9th-circuit-rules-against-la-unifieds-covid-vaccine-mandate-n2175204

[PeteS in CA]

The ruling rejected LAUSD's claim that the suit is moot since the district had rescinded its mandate two weeks after oral arguments in this appeal went very poorly for the district, and gave a detailed timeline of LAUSD's continued attempts to manipulate the legal proceedings.

Courts have been rejecting this argument because policies that have been reversed can just as easily be re-reversed if the argument is accepted as valid.

The 9th did not, AFAIK, rule of the potential validity of the vaccine vs. therapeutic argument, properly leaving that to the trial court. What the 9th's ruling does is let the lawsuit go to trial (assuming the panel's ruling is not overturned en banc or at the USSC).

[MeganC]

Courts have been rejecting this argument because policies that have been reversed can just as easily be re-reversed if the argument is accepted as valid.

The 9th did not, AFAIK, rule of the potential validity of the vaccine vs. therapeutic argument, properly leaving that to the trial court. What the 9th's ruling does is let the lawsuit go to trial (assuming the panel's ruling is not overturned en banc or at the USSC).

IMHO the 9th did indeed rule that mRNA is not a vaccine because otherwise they would have upheld Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Which they did not.