Federal court upholds LA school district's COVID vaccine mandate in blow to medical freedom

By avagrace // 2025-08-08

Copy

A federal appeals court upheld LAUSD's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, dismissing a lawsuit arguing it violated constitutional rights. The court cited federal health guidance, despite later evidence that the vaccines did not prevent transmission.
Employees and the Health Freedom Defense Fund sued, claiming the mandate was unconstitutional. Over 1,000 employees lost their jobs for refusing the vaccine, but the court ruled LAUSD acted reasonably based on CDC guidance.
The court relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which upheld vaccine mandates, but critics argued it was a flawed comparison since the smallpox vaccine stopped transmission—unlike COVID-19 shots. Dissenting judges warned of unchecked government power.
Plaintiffs may appeal to the Supreme Court, though success is uncertain. The ruling sets a concerning precedent, allowing mandates based on disputed or changing science, raising fears about eroded medical freedoms.
The case highlights tensions between public health authority and individual rights. Critics warn the decision empowers governments to enforce mandates without scientific certainty, threatening bodily autonomy and consent.

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."

Flawed comparison: Court uses controversial reasoning to junk complaint

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.

NATURAL NEWS

Flawed comparison: Court uses controversial reasoning to junk complaint

More related stories: