There are some pretty big takeaways from this ruling that could lead to ripple effects in other lawsuits, especially if the evidence at trial bears out what is in the pleadings and the court or a jury finds that evidence persuasive.
KEY POINTS
Plaintiffs argue that what’s commonly known as the COVID-19 vaccine isn’t a vaccine at all (because it doesn’t prevent transmission), but is a therapeutic, so it cannot be mandated by law.
At the U.S. District Court level, a judge ruled that a 1905 Supreme Court ruling (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) related to mandatory smallpox vaccination allowed the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The 9th Circuit panel ruled that, taking the Plaintiff’s pleadings as true (which they must at this point in the proceedings), Jacobson does not apply and that employees cannot be forced to receive “treatment” they don’t want to receive.
The ruling rejected LAUSD’s claim that the suit is moot since the district had rescinded its mandate two weeks after oral arguments in this appeal went very poorly for the district, and gave a detailed timeline of LAUSD’s continued attempts to manipulate the legal proceedings.
To fully appreciate LAUSD’s manipulative tactics, you have to understand the timeline.
