Court: Central District of California Western Division
Case #: 2:21-cv-08688-SB-MAA
Plaintiff: HFDF, CAEMF & others
Defendant: LAUSD
Trial Type: Demand for Jury Trial
Judge:
Status: Ongoing
Verdict: TBD
Background
Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and six individual plaintiffs from California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF) filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) challenging COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all teachers and staff. The defendants will be served this week. (1)
Health Freedom Defense Fund opposes laws and regulations that force Americans to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will. (1)
Never in the history of this nation have citizens been subjected to such violations of their individual rights and liberties as they have under the constant state of emergency in effect in the United States for the last twenty months. The COVID emergency has been used to justify lockdowns, ban worship services, suspend jury trials, impose mask mandates, and now, to force vaccines, in what amounts to a clear violation of the most basic of human rights, that of bodily autonomy. (1)
Significance
This Case Challenges the Ability of the State to impose Medical treatments (especially new) on staff as a a condition of employment.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The lawsuit alleges an utter lack of justification for LAUSD’s mandate, citing robust science which demonstrates the inability of the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines to prevent infection and transmission, the superior protection of natural immunity, and the significantly higher incidence of injuries, adverse reactions, and deaths from the COVID-19 injections compared to all prior vaccines brought to market. (1)
Leslie Manookian, president of HFDF said, “How have we come to a place in less than two years where many Americans now feel comfortable inquiring about the personal health choices of others and our government feels comfortable coercing healthy Americans to undergo a risky medical procedure in order to provide for their families? Have we become North Korea?” (1)
As CDC has admitted the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and recent evidence demonstrates that vaccinated individuals are as likely to spread the Delta variant as the unvaccinated, any public health argument for the shots has disintegrated. (1)
“Instituting a vaccine mandate as a requisite of employment is a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law and is unconstitutional,” said plaintiffs’ lead attorney John W. Howard. As such, LAUSD’s mandate also constitutes a serious invasion of the privacy rights of the plaintiffs. (1)
The complaint goes on to state that those injected with COVID vaccines can become “immunological cripples” dependent on vaccines for the foreseeable future, “super-spreaders” carrying extremely high viral loads in their nose and upper airways, and may become more clinically ill than the unvaccinated, with a higher chance of death and severe hospitalization.(1)
Attorneys claim the plaintiffs in the case have been stripped of their liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which includes rights of personal autonomy, self-determination, bodily integrity, and the right to reject medical treatment. (1)
Late Friday November 12th, 2021, Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), Federal Employees for Freedom (FEFF), and several individuals filed suit in the Middle District of Florida against President Biden and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Case 8:21-cv-02679), challenging the federal vaccination mandate for all federal employees, announced on September 9th, 2021 through Executive Order No. 14043. (1)
HFDF is a nonprofit that advocates for and educates the public on the topics of medical choice, bodily autonomy, and self-determination. Health Freedom Defense Fund opposes laws and regulations that force Americans to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will and has filed several other lawsuits challenging mask and vaccine mandates at the local, state and federal level. (1)
HFDF is joined by FEFF, a group representing approximately 6000 employees of various agencies in the federal government, and advocating for constitutional rights and freedoms concerning bodily autonomy, self-determination, privacy, and religious freedom, in particular as these relate to governmental mandates requiring vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease.
Significance
This legal action challenges Biden’s sweeping mandate which violates not only various elements of the Federal Code of Regulations and U.S. Supreme Court rulings, but also doesn’t take into account the individual beliefs, morals, and medical situations of each person. (1)
“If the President has the power to dictate medical treatment to individual Americans, the United States of America is no longer a constitutional republic but a kingdom led by a ruler,” said HFDF president Leslie Manookian. (1)
Plaintiff’s Argument
The lawsuit contends that “Private matters of personal, bodily choice are retained by the governed and to be decided by the individual, on a case-by-case basis. The people have never delegated those rights to the government. As such, the government has neither the just power, nor the consent of the governed, to forcibly decide for them.” (1)
“The issue to be decided here then is not whether the emerging science and statistics support, or refute, the use, efficacy, and safety of the vaccines, but whether that decision remains with, and is reserved by, the individual into whose body the vaccine will be injected, and whether the people gave that right to the government to decide for them through sweeping Executive Orders.” (1)
President Joe Biden pushed OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to implement regulations demanding that all businesses with 100 or more employers need to force all their employees to be vaccinated by January 4 or face mask requirements and weekly tests that the employees must pay for themselves. Additionally, under the mandate, employers are subject to fines of up to $13,653 per day for each employee that does not comply. (3)
The next day (Nov 6, 2021), in response to a several groups of petitioners including several states, America First Legal and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals halted this order until further investigation by the courts. The Biden administration defied this by putting out a statement that business should go ahead with the order.
In response the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals once again halted this order. At least 27 states filed lawsuits challenging the rule in several circuits.
The Biden administration has been encouraging widespread vaccinations as the quickest way to end the pandemic that they assert has claimed more than 750,000 lives in the United States. (2)
*** If you have more information about this case & would like to contribute please contact us***
Significance
A Federal Court has defended the Constitution from the Biden Administration’s efforts to remove the Rights of Employees to determine their own health needs and their authority over their own body.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The petition argues the mandate is unconstitutional because it:
– Violates the non-delegation doctrine: Congress did not give OSHA the power to enact a nationwide vaccine mandate, affecting 80+ million people, when it gave them the power to regulate workplace safety. Congress has not given OSHA the power to try and end pandemics. (3)
– Violates the Commerce Clause: The mandate applies even to companies that do business solely inside of Texas, and whose services never cross state lines. States have a general police power; the federal government does not. It is a government of enumerated powers, and it cannot do this by invoking the Commerce Clause. (3)
Statement From America First Legal President Stephen Miller:
“These imperial executive mandates are unlawful, unconstitutional, unacceptable, unconscionable and un-American. America First Legal and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have filed these historic lawsuits to defeat these illegal decrees and save our liberties and our constitutional system of government,” Stephen Miller said. (3)
Statement From America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton:
“Threatening the livelihoods of hard working Americans through federal mandates is the latest example of the Biden Administration’s executive overreach,” America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton said. “The Biden Administration does not have the authority to mandate that private businesses become de facto vaccine enforcers for the federal government. The mandate is patently unconstitutional and America First Legal is proud to partner with the patriots at TPPF to protect the rights of Americans from an Administration acutely dedicated to chipping them away,” Gene Hamilton said. (3)
Statement From General Counsel for Texas Public Policy Foundation Robert Henneke:
“Our clients believe that the decision to be vaccinated should be made by individuals and their doctors—not the federal government,” said Robert Henneke, general counsel for TPPF. “In addition to turning private employers into federal vaccine enforcers, the rule will also result in many individuals leaving the workforce entirely, accelerating a trend that has devastated our economic recovery from the pandemic.” (3)
“Our clients are standing up for themselves and their employees, but ultimately, they are standing up for the right of every American to make their own medical decisions, based on advice from their doctors,” Robert Henneke said. (3)
Statement From Senior Attorney at Texas Public Policy Foundation Matt Miller:
“Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and never-ending expansion of government power,” said Matt Miller, senior attorney at TPPF. “This mandate, which says to workers ‘take the vaccine or lose your job,’ represents a line that many people of good will simply will not cross. It is long past time for courts to step in and recognize that the power of the government is restricted by the Constitution, even in times of crisis.”
“The fact that the federal government had to dust off the emergency temporary standard, which is a rarely used and rarely successful vehicle for delivering OSHA requirements, tells you that the federal government knows it does not actually have the authority to issue this mandate. And the fact that the mandate completely ignores natural immunity and barely accounts for religious and medical exemptions tells you that this is more about forcing compliance with the federal government’s whims, rather than developing a sensible workplace safety rule,” Matt Miller said. (3)
Defendant’s Argument
…More information is needed…
Decision #1
After the first ruling (Nov 6, 2021) denying the OSHA mandate, Louisiana Attorney General Landry said the action stops President Joe Biden
“from moving forward with his unlawful overreach.”
“The president will not impose medical procedures on the American people without the checks and balances afforded by the constitution,” Landry said in a statement. (2)
The 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, said it was delaying the federal vaccine requirement because of potential “grave statutory and constitutional issues” raised by the plaintiffs. The government must provide an expedited reply to the motion for a permanent injunction Monday, followed by petitioners’ reply on Tuesday
Decision #2
Writing for a panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Engelhardt described the mandate as “fatally flawed” and said OSHA grossly exceed its legal authority. “…health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy. In seeking to do so here, OSHA runs afoul of the statute from which it draws its power and, likely, violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty,” the judge wrote. (1)
Circuit Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt cited similar Commerce Clause and non-delegation doctrine arguments AFL and TPPF presented:
“The Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power. A person’s choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity…The Commerce Clause power may be expansive, but it does not grant Congress the power to regulate noneconomic inactivity traditionally within the States’ police power.”
– “The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created OSHA, was enacted by Congress to assure Americans “safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” See 29 U.S.C. § 651 (statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy). It was not—and likely could not be, under the Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine—intended to authorize a workplace safety administration in the deep recesses of the federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways. On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster…” (4)
Aftermath
Following the Nov 6 halt, The Biden administration said it is confident that the requirement, which includes penalties of nearly $14,000 per violation, will withstand legal challenges in part because its safety rules pre-empt state laws (2)
Statement from America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton:
“All Americans should be excited about the Fifth Circuit’s affirmation of its stay of the Biden Administration’s OSHA vaccine mandate. Under our Constitution, our federal government is one of limited powers—it is not an all-powerful government that can dictate very aspect of American life. President Biden is not a king. The Court’s rejection of his Administration’s assertion of these broad, sweeping powers should serve as a warning for other components of their radical agenda,” Gene Hamilton said. (4)
Following the ruling OSHA placed the following announcement on their site
On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) (“ETS”). The court ordered that OSHA “take no steps to implement or enforce” the ETS “until further court order.” While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation. (5)
On Dec 8, 2021 the US Senate Voted to Repeal Biden Vaccine Mandates for Employers. (6)
Two Democrats joined all 50 Republicans in Wednesday’s 52 – 48 vote to overturn President Biden’s vaccine mandate for private business with more than 100 employers. According to news reports, even if the measure secures enough votes to pass in the House, Biden will likely veto it. (6)
The Appeal in the 6th Circuit
In its Dec 1, 2021, ruling, the 6th Circuit reinstated Biden’s mandate—a 2-1 decision. The ruling sets up a likely showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. [7]
The Supreme Court
On Jan 7 2022, the Supreme Court heard expedited arguments. They ruled in favor of the Plaintiff on Jan 13 2022 in a 6-3 unsigned opinion. [8]
5th circuit, Biden, Businesses, Court, Federal, Mandate, President, USA, Vaccine, New Orleans, Appeals, Senate, OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
