08/08/2025 / By Ava Grace
In a controversial ruling that critics say undermines personal liberty, a federal appeals court last week dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandate for employees.
The court ruled that the district was justified in enforcing the mandate based on federal health guidance, even if the vaccines did not prevent transmission of the virus. The decision was handed down by the full 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
It overturned an earlier ruling that had sided with employees who argued the mandate violated their constitutional rights. The case now raises critical questions about government overreach, medical autonomy and the legal precedent for future public health mandates. (Related: BREAKING: Los Angeles School District rescinds covid-19 vaccine mandate – over 1,000 employees who were wrongfully terminated now await justice.)
The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and a group of LAUSD employees under the banner of California Educators for Medical Freedom. They argued that forcing school staff to take the COVID-19 vaccine amounted to an unconstitutional medical mandate.
More than 1,000 employees lost their jobs for refusing the shot. The plaintiffs sought to have the mandate declared unlawful and requested compensation for legal fees and damages.
But the 9th Circuit disagreed, ruling that LAUSD had acted reasonably by relying on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which at the time claimed the vaccines helped curb the spread of the virus.
The majority opinion leaned heavily on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld smallpox vaccine mandates. The judges argued that as long as the school district believed the mandate served public health, it was within its rights to enforce it – regardless of whether the science later proved otherwise.
This reasoning alarmed dissenting judges, who warned that the ruling gives government agencies unchecked power to impose medical mandates based on flawed or changing information.
“The majority’s opinion comes perilously close to giving the government carte blanche to require a vaccine or even medical treatment against people’s will,” the dissent stated. “Faithful adherence to Supreme Court precedent confirms that we should not blindly accept the mere say-so of the government.”
Critics of the ruling argue that Jacobson is a poor comparison. The smallpox vaccine in that case was proven to stop transmission – unlike the COVID-19 vaccines, which were later acknowledged by the CDC to have limited impact on spread.
The plaintiffs also pointed out that the CDC quietly altered its definition of a “vaccine” in 2021, removing the requirement that it provides immunity to a disease.
Attorney Scott Street, representing the employees, called the court’s analysis “shallow” and accused the judges of ignoring decades of constitutional protections against forced medical interventions.
Leslie Manookian, president of HFDF, said the plaintiffs are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the ruling sets a troubling precedent for future public health policies. If governments can mandate medical treatments based on preliminary or later-disproven claims, critics warn, individual rights could be eroded in the name of emergency measures.
Judge John Owens and Judge Kenneth Lee, who dissented partially, wrote about concerns regarding constitutional precedent. They argued that by not examining the effectiveness of the vaccine when weighing the legality of a medical mandate, the freedom of patients is put at risk.
The case highlights a growing tension between public health authority and personal freedoms. While LAUSD rescinded its mandate in 2023, the legal battle leaves open the possibility that similar policies could return in future health crises—with courts deferring to government assertions rather than scientific certainty.
While the ruling stands as a victory for public health officials, it deals a serious blow to those who believe medical decisions should remain between individuals and their doctors. As Manookian warned: “This ruling should terrify every American.”
Watch this video about more than 100 Washington State Patrol employees being fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccine.
This video is from the TKWK T.V channel on Brighteon.com.
Google and Facebook announce illegal COVID-19 vaccine mandates, targeting their own employees.
Arizona AG rules Tucson’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate targeting city employees is ILLEGAL.
Sources include:
Tagged Under:
California, campus insanity, CDC, COVID, immunity, LA United School District, Los Angeles, medical freedom, pandemic, science, smallpox, unconstitutional, unlawful, Vaccine dangers, vaccine mandate, vaccines
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Vaccines.News is a fact-based public education website published by Vaccines News Features, LLC.
All content copyright © 2018 by Vaccines News Features, LLC.
Contact Us with Tips or Corrections
All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.