This Spring, federal appeals courts around the US have made some important rulings protecting health freedom. Today we look at two key cases:
#1 Health Freedom Defense Fund v. LAUSD
This case involves a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for Los Angeles Unified School District employees. The opinion was issued on June 7 in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; this court, coincidentally, covers nine western and Pacific states, plus Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Mootness?
The first issue the court dealt with is “mootness,” here meaning that the mandate was no longer in effect when they wrote the opinion. LAUSD had dropped the employee COVID-19 vaccine mandate twelve days after oral arguments. To the Ninth Circuit, it appeared LAUSD is playing games and has not shown that there is “no reasonable expectation remains that it will return to its old ways.” Also, “LAUSD appears to have twice sought to manipulate the federal courts to avoid an adverse ruling on this issue.”
Jacobson does not apply
As to the main issue, the trial judge had ruled that under Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement was “rationally related” to a legitimate government interest and then dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit differed. They pointed out that the plaintiffs allege the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission and that the 1905 case was based on public health, i.e. protecting others.
Vaccine really a medical treatment
As alleged by the plaintiffs, these vaccines only help the people who get them, who can still spread the disease. So, they are a “medical treatment” and not a legitimate public health prophylactic. The complaint backs up these claims with data and statements from CDC: in September 2021 the agency changed the definition of “vaccine” to remove the word “immunity.” Plaintiffs also cite CDC’s statements that the vaccines do not prevent transmission and that natural immunity is superior.
“Preventing the spread”
Jacobson was predicated upon “preventing the spread” of smallpox. So according to the Ninth Circuit, the district trial court:
“[E]rred 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 reversed the earlier dismissal and sent the case back to the district court, ultimately to proceed towards trial.
#2 Lucky v. Landmark Medical
In this case, Ms. Lucky appeared close to getting hired by Landmark Medical, yet when they learned of her religious objections to the CVOD-19 vaccine she was told they do not accommodate such beliefs. The matter was decided by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12, 2024. This court covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Appeals court overrules trial judge
The district trial judge dismissed Lucky’s case, finding her religious beliefs inadequate. The Sixth Circuit reversed, offering great language on the contours of religious and medical freedom.
A prayer and an answer
Lucky is a non-denominational Christian who believes she “should not have any vaccination enter her body such that her body would be defiled, because her body is a temple.” She further “seeks to make all decisions, especially those regarding vaccination and other medical decisions, through prayer.” Lucky prayed about COVID-19 vaccine, and God said, “that she would suffer spiritual harm if she received the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Observance, practice, and belief
The trial judge ruled that Lucky failed to assert, “her religion has a specific tenet or principle that does not permit her to be vaccinated.” Instead, the judge said Lucky offered “only naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” But according to the Sixth Circuit, “religion” means all aspects of observance and practice, as well as one’s beliefs. And the fact that Lucky prayed, got an answer, and acted accordingly shows she has pled specific facts.
Court cannot judge plausibility of religious claim
The Supreme Court has said many times that “courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.” And “It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds.”
Federal courts and health freedom
From the definition of a “vaccine,” to the contours of religious exemptions, these federal courts are doing their jobs and standing up for health freedom!
National Health Freedom Action helps state groups that want to pass laws that protect health freedom. NHFA’s team of attorneys and advocates work with citizen groups, small and large, to provide the training, support, and tools, to help them succeed in their wish to protect health freedom.
If you have a committed group of individuals wanting to change the laws in your state, please reach out to us via email at info.nhfa@nationalhealthfreedom.org to set up an exploratory conversation. We would be happy to help in any we can. That is why we are here!
RECENT NEWS
