BREAKING: Vaccine Mandate Reckoning, Courts Open Door to Liability Lawsuits

The COVID House of Cards crumbles as zealous officials face the consequences for coercive vaccine mandates in a groundbreaking court ruling.

Friday, June 7th: In a groundbreaking decision that should have vaccine pushers shaking in their boots, the Ninth Circuit has cracked open the door to government officials, school districts, local governments, and other public entities being held liable for the injuries caused by their draconian COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The court's ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho suggests that if the COVID-19 vaccines are shown not to prevent transmission, only reduce symptoms for the recipient, then officials who forced them on individuals as a condition of keeping their jobs, staying in school, etc., may find themselves in the legal crosshairs.

Source: Dr. Jane Ruby

It's a dose of harsh reality for the bureaucrats and politicians who gleefully violated fundamental rights, insisting they were "following the science" while ignoring the science that didn't fit their narrative. They rolled out the vaccine mandates with religious zeal, smugly believing they were untouchable. But as many of us have been warned all along, the truth has a way of coming out eventually. And now that it has, those who recklessly pushed these experimental jabs, destroying livelihoods in the process, may finally be held to account. It's about time.

In this game-changing decision, a divided Ninth Circuit panel on Friday revived a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees. The 2-1 ruling overturned a California federal court's dismissal of the case, potentially setting the stage for significant implications for vaccine manufacturers and entities that enforced mandatory vaccination policies.

The lawsuit, filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individual plaintiffs, alleged that LAUSD's vaccine mandate violated their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccine, unlike traditional vaccines, does not prevent transmission or provide immunity, making it more akin to a medical treatment than a public health measure.

In its decision, the Ninth Circuit majority held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's 1905 ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld a mandatory smallpox vaccination law. The panel emphasized that Jacobson's rationale was based on the vaccine's ability to prevent the spread of disease. In contrast, the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine primarily mitigates symptoms for the recipient without effectively preventing transmission.

The court stressed that at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiff's allegations must be accepted as true. If proven, these allegations would distinguish the COVID-19 vaccine from the circumstances in Jacobson, potentially rendering the district court's reliance on that precedent misplaced.

The dissenting judge argued that the case should be dismissed as moot since LAUSD had recently rescinded its vaccine mandate. However, the majority found that LAUSD's history of withdrawing and reinstating vaccination policies in response to litigation suggested that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied, allowing the case to proceed.

The Ninth Circuit's decision could have far-reaching consequences for vaccine manufacturers, government officials, and employers who implemented mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. If the plaintiffs' allegations are substantiated, it could call into question the legal justification for such mandates and potentially expose these entities to liability.

However, the decision focused on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the school district's policy. It did not definitively rule on monetary liability for individual officials. Separate state laws govern when government employees or entities can be sued for damages.

As the case moves forward in Federal Court, it will be closely watched by legal experts, public health officials, and citizens alike. The outcome of this seminal court decision will obviously have significant implications.

If you find these interviews and articles informative, please become a paid subscriber for under 17¢ a day. I don’t believe in paywalls, but this is how I make a living, so any support is appreciated. Either way…. it’s available to you….