"Ninth Circuit Court Full Details... read each bullet point baby! (1) The court ruled that the district court misapplied the 1905 Jacobson case because LAUSD relies on a drug that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged did not prevent the spread of the virus. (2) LAUSD has changed its mind about requiring the vaccine and therefore, the case cannot be mooted because LAUSD has proven it will just enact it again later. (3) The court said, "But even if the materials offered by LAUSD are subject to judicial notice, they do not support rejecting Plaintiffs’ allegations. LAUSD only provides a CDC publication that says “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” But safe and effective for what? LAUSD implies that it is for preventing transmission of COVID-19 but does not adduce judicially noticeable facts that prove this." (4) "Pursuant to more recent Supreme Court authority, compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others— implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. Plaintiffs’ allegations here are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right. Defendants note that the vaccination mandate was imposed merely as a “condition of employment,” but that does not suffice to justify the district court’s application of rational-basis scrutiny." (5) MUST READ THIS..."In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the Court explained that Cruzan’s posited “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’” was “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” in light of “the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.” Id. at 724–25 (citation omitted). Given these statements in Glucksberg, the right described there satisfies the history-based standards that the Court applies for recognizing “fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 237–38 (2022). The Supreme Court’s caselaw thus clarifies that compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others— implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment." https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf… 
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
