The Liberty Clause Case
Re: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates to supersede the Constitutional Rights of an Individuals Personal Autonomy under the Liberty Clause
Facts of the Case
- Dates: Sept 19, 2022 (filed)
- Location: New Jersey, USA
- Court: US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
- Case #: 22-2230
- Plaintiff: Katie Sczesny, Jamie Rumfield, Debra Hagen & Mariette Vitti
- Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
- Defendant: State of New Jersey, Governor Philip Murphy
- Trial Type: Appeal
- Judge: TBD
- Status: Ongoing
- Verdict: TBD
*updated Dec 6, 2022
Nations in Action has brought this case to court via an unopposed motion  using the legal vehicle of a so-called Amicus Curiae Brief. This is a written submission to a court in which an Amicus Curiae (literally a “friend of the court:” a person or organization who/which is not party to the proceedings) can set out legal arguments and recommendations in a given case.
The nonprofit organization ’Nations in Action’, founded by Maria Zack is dedicated to upholding the US Constitution and all laws to protect and advance democracy and justice for all Americans and has brought this case to court from their interest to ensure a proper protection of the Liberty Clause of the US Constitution to protect personal autonomy — in this case as it relates to the legality of vaccine mandates.
Nations in Action supports the Plaintiffs-Petitioners and seeks a reversal of the District Court’s ruling that applied rational basis review to medical (vaccine) mandates. Nations in Action has no financial interest in the outcome of the case.
Amicus Curiae attorney Deana Pollard Sacks authored the entire Amicus Brief which can be
It was submitted to the court 19th Sept 2022 and the New Jersey Attorney General has just (as of Nov 17) filed their responsive brief to the appeal.
Potential to change the standard of judicial review w.r.t. challenges to vaccine mandates and shift burden of proof re safety/efficacy of Covid-19 “vaccines” to the government resulting in mandates being struck down.
Nation in Action’s attorney, Deana Pollard Sacks seeks to present the oral argument to the Third Circuit based on the following [1&2]:
- … that the right to reject all forms of unwanted bodily contact is a fundamental right implicit in liberty aspect of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, also known as the Liberty Clause.
- The history and tradition of both English and American common law as well as American constitutional law make clear that the longstanding policy protecting the “inviolability” of a person’s body manifests a centuries-old natural right held by all persons not to be touched physically without valid and voluntary consent.
- This fundamental right of bodily autonomy … is a quintessential fundamental right implicit in the Liberty Clause based on American constitutional norms and historical English and American common law theory and precedent. The Amicus Brief provides the Third Circuit with historical tort and constitutional precedent to establish that the right to reject COVID-19 injections is fundamental.
- The fact that the government in this case conditioned the benefit of employment on the relinquishment of a constitutional right does not alter the Liberty Clause analysis. Pursuant to the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, the extraordinary level of coercion involved in the COVID-19 injection mandates render them presumptively unconstitutional and subject to the same judicial scrutiny as laws of general applicability. In addition, the irregularities, misinformation, and lack of democratic and legislative due process at the promulgation stage of the COVID -19 injection mandates in conjunction with the many constitutional infringements that attend the mandates (medical autonomy, religious freedom, and/or childrearing autonomy in some cases, inter alia) render careful judicial review at the challenge stage absolutely critical to maintain some semblance of individual rights assured by the Constitution.
- The District Court’s deference to a medical mandate involving injections under the skin is dangerous considering the complete lack of due process at the promulgation stage of the mandates. At some point the government’s invasive medical dictates must be subject to checks and balances and this duty falls on the judiciary under these circumstances. Strict judicial scrutiny concerning the efficacy, safety, and necessity of the COVID-19 injection mandates is essential to avoid medical oppression, and so far the judicial branch has failed to provide this critical check by erroneously applying rational basis review and deferring to executive branches’ highly irregular and non-democratic medical mandates.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts sets the judicial review standard as the national basis (this point is opposed in detail in the Amicus Brief). [as per lawyer D Sachs]
Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases
On first hearing, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction leading to this appeal (more information needed). [as per lawyer D Sachs]
…More information is needed…
- Deana Pollard Sachs, ‘Elements of Liberty’ 61 SMU L. REV. 1557 (2008)
- Deana Pollard Sachs, “Judicial Protection of Medical Liberty” 49 FSU L. Rev 515 (2022)
In the news:
…More information is needed…