Jump to content

US Ninth Court of Appeals Panel Reinstates Challenge to LAUSD Mandatory Vaccination Policy


Recommended Posts

This is the link to the entire published court summary publish by the Ninth Court of Appeals.
 

US Ninth Court of Appeals Rules Against the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) mandatory Covid Vaccination policy.  The attorneys for the school district were arguing that under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) that vaccinations could be forced on the public in order to stop the spread of a disease.  However, as the court noted [in a tentative finding accepting the plaintiff's claims for procedural purposes], the Covid vaccines do not stop the spread of Covid and therefore Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) does not apply.

 

Quotes from the majority ruling of the US Ninth Court of Appeals: 

 

"At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply.  LAUSD cannot get around this standard by stating that Plaintiffs’ allegations are wrong. Nor can LAUSD do so by providing facts that do not contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations."

 

Supporting news stories:

 

https://norcalrecord.com/stories/660579128-appeals-panel-covid-vax-s-lack-of-effectiveness-at-stopping-spread-could-doom-covid-vax-mandates

 

https://www.openlegalblogarchive.org/2024/06/07/health-freedom-defense-fund-v-carvalho-9th-cir-june-7-2024/


https://californiaglobe.com/articles/huge-legal-victory-health-freedom-defense-fund-wins-appeal-against-lausd/

 

https://californiainsider.com/california-news/health/federal-court-revives-lawsuit-against-los-angeles-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-5665797

 

https://www.thaimbc.com/2024/06/10/federal-appeals-court-revives-lawsuit-against-los-angeles-covid-19-mandate/

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, connda said:

However, as the court noted [in a tentative finding accepting the plaintiff's claims for procedural purposes], the Covid "vaccines" do not stop the spread of Covid and therefore Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) does not apply.

 

Yes a very important point    if the "treatment" does not stop the spread then it should not be forced/coerced or mandated  because if it only protects the individual then the state/government can mandate/force all kinds of things and everyone has lost their bodily autonomy....

remember my body my choice ???    forgotten in an instant it seems .

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what the court ruling actually said, and what it means:

Trump-appointed judges revive lawsuit against L.A. schools’ COVID vaccine mandate

Even though Los Angeles Unified dropped its COVID vaccine mandate for school staff almost a year ago, a lawsuit accusing the district of violating workers’ rights can still move forward, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday.  

 

The 2-1 ruling by a pair of federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump revives a case that a lower court had dismissed. It also counters recent rulings by courts —  including the 9th Circuit — that tossed lawsuits challenging expired COVID-19 rules on the grounds that the policies were no longer in effect.

...

They [the judges] also indicated they were open to arguments over the effectiveness of the vaccine, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes as a safe way to build immunity against COVID-19.

 

“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. The opinion characterizes that aspect of the ruling as preliminary, and something that would be argued at a lower court.

 

(more)

 

https://calmatters.org/education/2024/06/covid-vaccine-mandate-schools/

 

As the court ruling notes on page 19 regarding the opinion's ruling on the status of COVID vaccines:

 

"We note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs’ allegations will prove true."

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And what the court ruling actually said, and what it means:

Trump-appointed judges revive lawsuit against L.A. schools’ COVID vaccine mandate

Even though Los Angeles Unified dropped its COVID vaccine mandate for school staff almost a year ago, a lawsuit accusing the district of violating workers’ rights can still move forward, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday.  

 

The 2-1 ruling by a pair of federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump revives a case that a lower court had dismissed. It also counters recent rulings by courts —  including the 9th Circuit — that tossed lawsuits challenging expired COVID-19 rules on the grounds that the policies were no longer in effect.

...

They also indicated they were open to arguments over the effectiveness of the vaccine, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes as a safe way to build immunity against COVID-19.

 

“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. The opinion characterizes that aspect of the ruling as preliminary, and something that would be argued at a lower court.

 

(more)

 

https://calmatters.org/education/2024/06/covid-vaccine-mandate-schools/

 

Ok - I hope it goes to the Supreme Court.  The LAUSD was playing "whack-a-mole" with the 9th Court by pulling the mandate in order to get the court to drop the case as "moot" and then reissuing the mandate again.  The court clearly notes this and got tired of the game.  So it will probably go to the SCOTUS in order to attempt to get a ruling by the SCOTUS that the case actually was "moot" because the LAUSD (temporarily) dropped the mandates to avoid an adverse ruling. 

Here's the ruling - read the whole 33 pages.  It's in there as part of the majority decision. 

"LAUSD appears to have twice sought to
manipulate the federal courts to avoid an adverse ruling on
this issue.
Moreover, the Board expressly reserved the
option to again consider imposing a vaccine mandate. This
confirms that LAUSD has not carried its heavy burden to
show that there is no reasonable possibility that it will again
revert to imposing a similar policy."

 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf

 

 

Edited by stats
corrected weblink posted
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the merits of the case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) isn't going to stand legal scrutiny because the current Covid shots do not stop transmission.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original COVID vaccines were never approved on the basis of their ability to "stop transmission." They were approved on the basis of their ability to prevent/reduce COVID illness and death, which they in fact have consistently done.  The original effectiveness in reducing transmission, which did occur more substantially earlier in the pandemic, was an added, somewhat unexpected benefit.

Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants

February 13, 2024

 

"To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time."

...

At the time governments were negotiating advance purchases of vaccine in 2020, the European Medicines Agency had already laid out requirements for an application for conditional marketing authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine, clinical trials were underway, and tests to show the vaccine prevented onward transmission were not required of any vaccine maker.

...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration laid out similar expectations for vaccine trials in June of 2020, and did not require data regarding the effect on virus transmission. (https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download, opens new tab)"

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, connda said:

Ok - I hope it goes to the Supreme Court.

 

 

"The school district can appeal the ruling to a larger panel of judges on the 9th Circuit, which covers nine states and has been considered the most liberal of the nation’s appellate circuits. If the new ruling stands, the lawsuit would return to the U.S. District Court for Central Central California in Los Angeles court for further arguments.

 

“We are reviewing the 9th Circuit ruling and assessing the district’s options,” a spokesperson for the district said late Friday."

 

https://calmatters.org/education/2024/06/covid-vaccine-mandate-schools/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be a "vaccine" (in today's era of medicine) does not mean the given vaccine has to be shown to prevent transmission of an illness.

 

The flu vaccine does not, and never has, AFAIK, completely prevented transmission of the flu, though it does, much like the COVID vaccines, reduce the vaccinated person's risk of getting sick typically by in the range of 40-60%, depending on the year.

 

The Trump appointed judges here would seem to have a lot to learn about modern medicine in general and vaccines in particular. And I haven't heard of anyone going to court trying to argue that the flu vaccines really aren't vaccines because they don't prevent transmission of the flu.

 

"While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines."

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

To be a "vaccine" (in today's era of medicine) does not mean the given vaccine has to be shown to prevent transmission of an illness.

 

The flu vaccine does not, and never has, AFAIK, completely prevented transmission of the flu, though it does, much like the COVID vaccines, reduce the vaccinated person's risk of getting sick typically by in the range of 40-60%, depending on the year.

 

The Trump appointed judges here would seem to have a lot to learn about medicine in general and vaccines in particular. And I haven't heard of anyone going to court trying to argue that the flu vaccines really aren't vaccines because they don't prevent transmission of the flu.

 

"While vaccine effectiveness (VE) can vary, recent studies show that flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness by between 40% and 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to those used to make flu vaccines."

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm

 

Nice attempt to deflect from the real issue here. 

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From one of Connda's cited media reports above in the OP:

 

"To be clear: I might well find it plausible that the COVID vaccine mostly only reduces the severity of the illness. Or at least I don’t find such an allegation obviously implausible; again, I’m not a scientist and haven’t reviewed all the data.

 

But Jacobson nowhere says that the government can only require a vaccine when it’s 100% effective (which, even back then, it wasn’t): it only says that it’s constitutional for the government to require injections in order to reduce transmission in the face of a public health epidemic. I haven’t seen anything cited by plaintiffs or the panel that suggests to me that the was either not an epidemic (there was) or that COVID vaccines didn’t reduce, in at least a non-trivial way (and likely in a massive way), the rate of transmission of that deadly virus. If so, Jacobson controls.

...

That’s my reaction to today’s opinion. We’ll see in due course whether the Ninth Circuit takes it en banc. (My guess is that it will.)

 

https://www.openlegalblogarchive.org/2024/06/07/health-freedom-defense-fund-v-carvalho-9th-cir-june-7-2024/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...