Health Freedom Defence Fund vs Los Angeles Unified School District's Vaccination Policy.
The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccination policy interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment
My Summary.
In the case "Health Freedom Defence Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho," the plaintiffs presented several key arguments against the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccination policy. Here are the main arguments:
1. Fundamental Right to Refuse Medical Treatment:
The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccination policy interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. They contended that the COVID-19 vaccine does not function as a "traditional" vaccine because it does not prevent the transmission of the virus but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient. Therefore, they argued, it should be considered a medical treatment rather than a vaccine.
2.Misapplication of Jacobson v. Massachusetts:
The plaintiffs claimed that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in ‘Jacobson v. Massachusetts’ (1905). They argued that ‘Jacobson’ was about a vaccine that prevented the spread of smallpox, whereas the COVID-19 vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19. Thus, they contended that ‘Jacobson’ should not apply to their case.
3. Voluntary Cessation and Mootness:
The plaintiffs argued that the case was not moot despite LAUSD's repeal of the vaccination policy. They pointed to LAUSD's history of reversing its policies and suggested that the district might reinstate the vaccination mandate in the future. Therefore, they argued that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied, keeping the case alive.
4. Violation of Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection:
The plaintiffs challenged the policy under the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming it violated their substantive due process and equal protection rights. They argued that the policy was not justified by a legitimate government interest, especially since the vaccine did not prevent transmission of the virus.
These arguments formed the basis of the plaintiffs' appeal, leading the Ninth Circuit to vacate the district court's dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.
Based on the court's summary, the plaintiffs (Health Freedom Defence Fund and others) made the following key allegations and provided supporting evidence:
1. They alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not function as a "traditional" vaccine because it does not prevent transmission of the virus, but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient. To support this, the plaintiffs cited:
Data and statements from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicating the vaccine does not prevent transmission.
The CDC's change in September 2021 to the definition of "vaccine", removing the word "immunity", which plaintiffs argued showed the CDC conceded the COVID-19 vaccine does not provide immunity.
2. The plaintiffs' complaint attached the March 4, 2021 LAUSD memorandum announcing the original vaccination policy, which they claimed required employees to get vaccinated with no exceptions allowed initially.
3. The plaintiffs cited a letter from the LAUSD employees' union stating that all employees would be required to get vaccinated with no exceptions made.
4. After LAUSD rescinded the policy following oral arguments, the plaintiffs provided a declaration from their counsel stating that as they were leaving the courtroom, LAUSD's attorney said "What are you going to do when we rescind the mandate?", suggesting LAUSD withdrew the policy due to litigation risk.
So in summary, the plaintiffs provided CDC statements, LAUSD's own memos/letters, and a declaration from counsel to support their claims about the nature of the COVID vaccine and LAUSD's motivations for rescinding the policy. The court accepted these allegations as true at the pleading stage.
The conclusion of the case "Health Freedom Defence Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho" (No. 22-55908) is that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' action and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit found that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied because the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had a pattern of withdrawing and reinstating its COVID-19 vaccination policies, which kept the case alive. The court also held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts by concluding that the COVID-19 vaccination policy survived rational basis review. The Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19, and therefore, Jacobson does not apply. The case was remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.
Opinion from an Australian Lawyer:
“A different law applied .. and the ruling was made 'from the pleadings', meaning neither party had an opportunity to introduce further evidence, and could only rely on what they had already stated in their pleadings filed in the court.
.. this meant the Defendant dept was not able to introduce any further evidence seeking to rebut what the Plaintiff had already filed in their pleadings .. being essentially, that Covid-19 drugs neither prevent transmission nor stop infection, and are therefore not 'vaccines' .. these statements alone were then compared to the unique US case of ‘Jacobson’, being the case that sets the rules for when a Government department can and cannot mandate vaccines .. ‘Jacobson’ clearly said a vaccine could be mandated for stopping transmission of a disease .. as the Plaintiff in this case has stated in its pleadings; the Covid drugs neither stopped transmission or infection, then they did not meet the requirement in ‘Jacobson’, so could not be mandated .. .. importantly, the case is not finshed (it was remanded), so the Defendant government department may be given another opportunity to introduce evidence showing the drugs stop transmission .. which we both know that will be difficult .. so for now Ian I would take this judgment as a very positive step in the right direction, and Australian courts need to take note ..
Australian courts have never had anywhere near the developed case law and precedence to deal with vaccine mandates in Australia, so should have always looked to the much more developed law on vaccine mandates developed in the USA”.
Ian Brighthope.
Jehovahs Witnesses fought for decades for their right to refuse blood transfusions and use alternative treatments Bodily autonomy is a God-given gift ..IMO You are doing the right thing and I pray the Creator and designer of the human body blesses your efforts Thankyou