The Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Los Angeles Unified School District case, which has gone largely unreported in on the mainstream press, is the best shot we’ve currently got in the litigation pipeline at overturning all of the draconian and unjustifiable COVID-19 mRNA injection mandates in American schools and other institutions.
Related: FDA: 'Vaccines Do Not Require Demonstration of the Prevention of Infection or Transmission'
An excerpt from the Ninth District panel ruling (emphasis added):
The panel vacated the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ action alleging that the COVID-19 vaccination policy of the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”)—which, until twelve days after oral argument, required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs—interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.
The panel held that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied. LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies was enough to keep this case alive. The record supported a strong inference that LAUSD waited to see how the oral argument in this court proceeded before determining whether to maintain the Policy or to go forward with a pre-prepared repeal option. LAUSD expressly reserved the option to again consider imposing a vaccine mandate. Accordingly, 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. Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a “traditional” vaccine. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.
In my view, Jacobson v. Massachusetts is antithetical to the personal autonomy guaranteed in the Constitution full-stop, but even taking the ruling at face value, it came with an important caveat: that the injection mandated actually serve a public health benefit — i.e., preventing the spread of transmission, which we now know, by Pfizer’s own admission, these shots do not.
Related: WATCH: Pfizer Executive Cornered Like a Rat on Vaccine Lies
The American Journal of Public Health (emphasis added):
As the 20th century began, epidemics of infectious diseases such as smallpox remained a recurrent threat. A Massachusetts statute granted city boards of health the authority to require vaccination “when necessary for public health or safety.” In 1902, when smallpox surged in Cambridge, the city’s board of health issued an order pursuant to this authority that required all adults to be vaccinated to halt the disease. The statutory penalty for refusing vaccination was a monetary fine of $5 (about $100 today).
Ergo, there can be no legitimate public health or safety claim for a product that protects no one in the general public from the individual receiving it. That every other court that has heard this argument for many years now has not issued similar rulings speaks to how broken the legal system is. This is cut-and-dry stuff that any non-lawyer can parse.
