LAUSD School Vaccine Case

LAUSD School Vaccine Case

LAUSD Vaccine Case

Re: the Legality of Mandating the Covid “Vaccine” to Children & Segregating those who Refuse


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 8, 2021 (filed)
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Court: Superior Court of California- Civil Division
  • Case #: 21STCP03381
  • Plaintiff: Father & Son
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: LAUSD Schools
  • Trial Type: Civil
  • Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff
  • Status: Decided (July 5, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated July 11, 2022



A parent of a 12-year-old student at the Science Academy STEM Magnet school filed court papers challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s mandate that all students aged 12 and older be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by Jan. 10 to enter campus unless they have a medical or other exemption. [1]

The plaintiff is identified only as G.F. in the lawsuit brought on behalf of the parent and the student, who is identified only as D.F. [1]

The district’s mandate requires all eligible students aged 12 and older to be vaccinated against the coronavirus by Jan. 10 to enter campus unless they have a medical or other exemptions. [2]


The Science Academy STEM Magnet school, located in North Hollywood, is a seven-year, college-preparatory public school that incorporates science, technology, engineering and mathematics. G.F.’s court papers state that D.F. studied hard to pass the entrance exam to be admitted to the school and does not want to have to leave because he and his parent choose to not have him receive the COVID-19 vaccine. [1]

“Losing his spot at the school would devastate D.F. and potentially foreclose future educational opportunities,” G.F’s court papers state. [1]

G.F. presented a notice to the LAUSD on Sept. 24 demanding that the vaccine mandate be rescinded, but the district did not respond, according to G.F.’s court papers. [1]

The following statement comes from September 9, 2021, from the Interim Superintendent of the LAUSD Megan K. Reilly: [5]

All students who are 12 years of age and older and are part of in-person extracurricular programs, must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than October 3, and their second dose by no later than October 31, 2021. All students who are 12 years of age and older must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than November 21, 2021, and their second dose by no later than December 19, 2021. All other students must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than 30 days after their 12th birthday, and their second dose by no later than 8 weeks after their 12th birthday.”

A spokesperson for the LAUSD released the following statement to City News Service: [5]

“In April of this year (2022), the Los Angeles Unified School District aligned with the state’s timeline for implementation of the governor’s student vaccine mandate wherein any vaccine requirement would not take effect until after full FDA approval and no sooner than July 1, 2023. Accordingly, the district’s alignment with the governor’s student vaccine mandate has allowed Los Angeles Unified students to enroll and attend in-person instruction. Los Angeles Unified will continue to take measures to ensure the health and safety of its students, employees, and school community.”



This case follows the San Diego ruling which ended the vaccine in that city’s schools. A similar decision could see more such rulings.


Plaintiff’s Argument

G.F. maintained the state and not the LAUSD is authorized to issue vaccination mandates and that the district’s requirement that unvaccinated pupils 12 years old and over attend independent learning classes outside campus violates the state Education Code. [3]

Coronavirus cases in the LAUSD have declined since teachers and children returned to in-person instruction in August, G.F.’s court papers state. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has found that children with the coronavirus have mild symptoms or none at all and that they rarely spread the virus, according to the court papers. [1]

Healthy children who have a natural immunity to COVID-19 and have not received the vaccine should not be discriminated against by the LAUSD, G.F.’s court papers state. In addition, keeping healthy children out of the classroom is contrary to state law and the students affected will not be able to make up for lost in-person learning, according to G.F.’s court papers. [1]

D.F., who has received all other required childhood immunizations, will suffer irreparable harm if not allowed to continue with his in-person learning and his two extra-curricular activities, G.F.’s court papers state. [1]

In a sworn declaration, G.F. says he believes the vaccine could irreparably harm his son, who has already contracted and recovered from the coronavirus and may have strong natural immunity. [3]

“Further, I worry that vaccinating him could prove even more dangerous now that he has had COVID-19,” G.F. says. “Among other things, I fear that the vaccination could overexcite his immune system and antibodies.” [3]

Having weighed those risks against what he believes to be a “statistically minuscule risk” that his son will contract the coronavirus again, G.F. says he “vehemently objects to LAUSD’s attempt to force his (son’s) vaccination.” [3]


Defendant’s Argument

In their court papers, LAUSD lawyers maintain that the court relief sought by G.F. and his son “fails on every conceivable level” and should have been denied. [3]

The relief sought by G.F. “asks this court to ignore the life-threatening risks presented by COVID-19 and the corresponding threat it poses to public education,”  the LAUSD attorneys argued in their court papers. [3]



Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

The group Let Them Breathe filed a lawsuit against the district in October 2021 in an attempt to enjoin the state from enforcing the mandate for students ages 12 and older, asserting that the requirement violates the law. [7]

San Diego Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled in favor of the anti-mask group, determining that the vaccine requirement was in breach of state law. School staff, however, will still have to abide by the mandate. [7]

Meyer ruled that the state legislature, not the school districts themselves, has the power to enforce a vaccine mandate for school attendance. [7]

“The statutory scheme leaves no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates, including those like the [San Diego Unified vaccine] Roadmap that lack a personal belief exemption and therefore are even stricter than what the [state health department] could itself impose upon learned consideration,” Meyer wrote in a ruling, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune. [7]

Meyer said that though the California legislature has granted the state public health department authority to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for schools, with the requirement that allowances be made for personal belief exemptions, the body did not give school districts the same power. [7]

See here for more “Let Them Breathe” Legal Actions



During a hearing in April (?) Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said he was initially inclined to find in favor of the LAUSD [3]



Finding that the Board of Education’s authority is “great, but not unlimited,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled in favor of the father of a 12-year-old student who challenged the Los Angeles Unified School District’s student COVID vaccine mandate, finding that the resolution approving the directive clashes with state law. [3]

The judge noted in his ruling that if D.F. remains unvaccinated, he will be forced to leave the academy and be subjected to a different curriculum. Beckloff further said that while the Board of Education’s authority is “great,” it is not unlimited. He found that the student vaccine resolution approved Sept. 9 conflicts with state law and clashes with the state Health and Safety Code by not allowing exemptions for personal beliefs. [3]

“While LAUSD argues the court’s ruling should apply to D.F. only, the court finds no justification for such a limitation given the board’s lack of authority to adopt the resolution,” Beckloff wrote. [3]

In his decision, Beckloff wrote that, with the exception of 10 vaccines that the state Legislature previously required of children to attend school in person, any new childhood immunization mandate must include a personal belief exemption clause. He noted that LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate does not allow for that exemption. [6]

“That LAUSD’s resolution does not exempt the COVID-19 vaccine for personal beliefs is in direct conflict with (state) Health and Safety Code,” Beckloff wrote. [6]

He went on to say the Legislature “intended to preclude local legislation on a matter of state concern.” [6]

The district had also sought to have the court’s ruling apply only to D.F., instead of all students, but the judge disagreed. [6]

“The court finds no justification for such a limitation given the board’s lack of authority to adopt the resolution,” Beckloff wrote. [6]



Reaction from the Plaintiffs:

Arie Spangler, attorney for the plaintiff, said in a statement that the ruling “confirms that individual school districts do not have the authority to impose vaccination requirements in excess of statewide requirements.” [6]

“We are very pleased with the ruling, as it ensures that Los Angeles Unified School District cannot force children out of the classroom due to their Covid-19 vaccination status,” she stated. [6]

Reaction from the LAUSD:

The district, in its own statement, noted that the district bumped its timeline for implementing any student vaccination mandate to align with the state’s mandate and that any such requirement won’t take effect before full approval of a vaccine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and no sooner than July 1, 2023. [6]

“Accordingly, the District’s alignment with the Governor’s student vaccine mandate has allowed Los Angeles Unified students to enroll and attend in-person instruction,” the district said. “Los Angeles Unified will continue to take measures to ensure the health and safety of its students, employees and school community.” [6]

Reaction from Supporters:

Following the Judge’s ruling in favor of the child’s father, parents Tweeted about the results of the hearing.  Suzanne Bird @Skylar1 reminded parents, that they could, “now file for damages from illegal vaccine mandates.” [5]

The news was celebrated online by the activist group “Let Them Breathe”: 

Ruling against LAUSD vax mandate follows Let Them Breathe win against SDUSD vax mandate. We expect to prevail against Granada Hills & New West Charter schools. Schools like Willows & Mirman should immediately end mandates. Kids have a right education & we will uphold that right! [3]

Reopen California added

“HUGE NEWS: A judge ruled this morning that LASchools’ student Covid vaccine mandate was illegal, blocking LAUSD from sending kids to independent study for not getting the Covid vaccine,” Reopen California tweeted. [3]

“Even though LAUSD delayed their mandate to align with the state timeline, they still intended on excluding kids from in-person instruction if they did not get the Covid vaccine,” [3]

Los Angeles Daily News: [6]

A judge has struck down the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 student vaccination mandate, finding that only the state can force students in California to get the vaccine to attend school in person. [6]

In a decision issued Tuesday, July 5, L.A. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff dealt a blow to the nation’s second-largest school district when he determined that the LAUSD school board’s authority is “great, but not unlimited,” and sided with the father of a 12-year-old student who last fall sued the district over its student vaccination mandate. [6]

While the decision marks a major win for opponents of vaccine mandates, it has no immediate bearing on families in LAUSD. The school board had already voted in May to delay its vaccine mandate for students – which requires students 12 and older to get the COVID-19 shot – for at least one school year to align with the state’s timeline for implementing its own mandate. [6]

The district’s vaccination mandate for employees remains in effect. [6]

Nevertheless, the judge’s ruling this week was received as an encouraging sign to those who have been pushing back on COVID-19-related school mandates. [6]

Beckloff’s ruling also comes after LAUSD recently ended its weekly COVID-19 testing program of all students and staff on campus. At this point, only students or staff on campus will be required to test based on need, such as if they’re experiencing symptoms or are exposed to an infected person. [6]


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…



Judge rules against San Diego Unified in vaccine mandate lawsuit -Dec 20221

source: CBS 8 San Diego

OSHA Vaccine Mandate Supreme Court Ruling -Jan 2022

source: the John Birch Society

Parents vs LAUSD vaccine mandate have their day in court (Dec 2021)

source: FOX 11 Los Angeles

Back to All Cases


UC Students v Vaccine Mandates Case

UC Students v Vaccine Mandates Case

UC Students Vaccine Mandate Case

Re: Legality of Vaccine Mandates as a condition to study at the University of Cincinnati


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

aka: Benjamin Lipp, et al. v. University of Cincinnati

  • Dates: filed 12/10/2021
  • Location: Hamilton County, Ohio USA
  • Court: Common Pleas Civil Court
  • Case #: A 2104238
  • Plaintiff: Benjamin Lipp, et al.
  • Defendant: University of Cincinnati
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Leslie Ghiz
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD



Calling it a civil rights issue designed to check a university’s abuse of power, Akron-based Mendenhall Law Group filed a lawsuit against the University of Cincinnati (UC) and its board of trustees over the school’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. (4)

The action was introduced in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas on Wednesday and includes four plaintiffs: students Benjamin Lipp, Danielle Seymore, Katelyn Verbarg and Nicholai Lekson. Warner Mendenhall and Kyle Wenning are representing the plaintiffs. (4)

The plaintiffs all were students at University of Cincinnati. Three of the plaintiffs had received exemptions from the school’s vaccine mandates. One of the plaintiffs met the vaccination requirement but he objects to the University’s mandatory vaccine policy and the possibility of having to receive a booster shot to stay in school. (1)

Multiple students told The Ohio Press Network (OPN) that they have received coercive emails from UC officials, and those who have questioned the mandate have been subject to derogatory remarks, including “you freedom people are annoying.” (4)

Lipp, who is also a plaintiff, is 24 and a senior majoring in finance. He points out that the virus has a more than 99% survival rate for Ohioans in his age range and the vaccine does not prevent transmission or infection of the virus.

“Even as an unvaccinated student, I have low risk of dying from COVID, and I’ve had the virus, so that puts me in a different class because of my natural immunity,” he explained. “If someone else is vaccinated, why do I need to be vaccinated?”

His personal opinion aside, Lipp said that he chose to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff because he believes university officials are violating his rights.

“You don’t have to have an opinion on COVID-19 to agree with the lawsuit. It’s not about whether or not masks and the vaccine works. It’s about public officials not acting within legal authority,” Lipp said. “If they can get away with this, what else will they try? This lawsuit is important because it is designed to hold them accountable.”

In September, UC instituted a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students, faculty and staff. Students were required to show proof of at least one dose of the shot by October 15 and two doses of the inoculation by November 15. (4)

The mandate applies to students and university employees who visit campus for class or work, and individuals who use campus facilities. Medical and religious exemptions to the vaccine requirement can be requested, according to the mandate. (4)

Students who do not comply by January 3 will be unenrolled from spring semester classes. Weekly testing is required between November 15 and January 3 for anyone not in compliance with the mandate. (4)

The website also includes: “The university will consider disciplinary measures in accordance with established policies for faculty and staff who are not fully vaccinated or have not been granted an exemption before the beginning of spring semester. Discipline for represented employees will proceed in accordance with agreed-upon processes currently being discussed with their collective bargaining units.” (4)

OPN (the Ohio Press Network) was provided with numerous emails obtained by a public records request that show UC officials attempting to implement their COVID-19 vaccine mandate despite the passage of HB 244, which was signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine and became effective on October 13. (4)

The legislation prohibits Ohio public schools from requiring vaccines not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). HB 244 also says that public schools cannot discriminate against people not vaccinated by mandating that they perform different activities from their vaccinated counterparts. Schools covered by the bill include state colleges and universities along with public schools, joint vocational school districts, college-prep boarding schools and STEM schools. (4)



This case covers multiple issues including discrimination, abuse of power and government over reach, illegal mandates, sovereignty of their own bodies, and the veracity of the Covid and Inoculation narrative


Plaintiff’s Argument

According to the lawsuit filing, “this is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief involving the statutory and constitutional validity of UC’s vaccination and health measure mandates effective Sept. 1, 2021.

“By reason of Ohio Revised Code 3709.212 and Ohio case law, the defendants lack authority to order those not diagnosed with a disease or have not come into direct contact with someone who has not been diagnosed with a disease to wear masks, undergo testing or limit their activities.”

The filing adds that the mandate also violates Ohio Revised Code 3792.04 because UC is a state school of higher education and is “discriminating by requiring plaintiffs to engage in or refrain from engaging in activities or precautions that differ from the activities or precautions of an individual who has received a vaccine that has not been fully approved by the FDA.”

The school’s vaccine mandate violates revised code 3792.04. The mandate violates Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution in that it violates Plaintiffs’ right to refuse medical treatment. The Mandate violates R.C. 2905.12 to the extent that it coerces Plaintiffs from taking or refraining from actions over which they should have legal freedom by choice, by taking, withholding or threatening to take or withhold official action. (1)

“One of the things we have seen across the country is exactly what we are pointing out in this lawsuit, that authorities are stepping outside the bounds of their authority,” Mendenhall said. “That equals an abuse of power, and it’s happening at federal, state and local level and at colleges and universities. Our lawsuit is designed to check the abuse of power.
“We have autonomy in our medical-decision making,”… “It is unprecedented that a university would require an experimental medical procedure on students or masking.

“We are waking up to the fact that the COVID-19 injection is not stopping spread,” … “Those who get the shot do not provide protection to anyone else. It is absurd that people are mistreated because they choose to not get a shot.” He noted that natural immunity is overlooked and it can be at least six times stronger than the vaccine.

“We would like [university officials] to end all mandates and not treat people differently,”


Defendant’s Argument











IU students file lawsuit over vaccine mandate

source: WHAS11

Judge halts vaccine mandate in 10 states

source: Fox News

Pfizer Vaccine Effectiveness Analyzed

source: Canadian Covid Care Alliance

Back to All Cases


Missouri Ends Lockdown Case

Missouri Ends Lockdown Case

Missouri Ends Lockdown Case

Re: Legality of Covid Lockdowns & Emergency Measures


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

aka: Shannon v. Missouri Department of Health

  • Dates: Nov 22, 2021
  • Location: Cole County, Missouri, USA
  • Court: Cole County Circuit Court of Missouri
  • Case #: 20AC-CC00515
  • Plaintiff: Shannon Robinson, et al.
  • Defendant: Missouri Department of Health
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Daniel Green
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For The Plaintiff



“A group of St. Louis-area residents and business owners filed against the state Department of Health and Senior Services to challenge” covid restrictions (2)

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones and County Executive Sam Page in July issued a joint mask order that required people to wear face coverings in indoor public spaces. (2)

St. Louis County’s mandate for face coverings in public spaces has been the target of a lawsuit from the state attorney general and a source of contention among politicians and residents. (2)



  • This Case effectively “ended ALL the state’s Covid measures” (1)
  • Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled that orders such as quarantines and business closures violate the Missouri Constitution’s separation of powers clause affecting the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.(3)

  • The circuit court judge “declared a Missouri law that enables local health departments to issue public health orders unconstitutional and is ordering officials to lift such rules.” (2)

  • The ruling by Cole County Judge Daniel Green calls into question the future of mask mandates and other local health orders created to stem the spread of the coronavirus. (2)


Plaintiff’s Argument

. (1)


Defendant’s Argument

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt represented the state in the suit. (2)



  • “This case is about whether Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services regulations can abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws, and whether it can authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “This Court finds it cannot.” (2)
  • The Court found that the Department of Health’s regulations CANNOT “abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws,” and CANNOT “authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official.” (1)
  • The Court didn’t just find a technical reason to set aside the DOH’s emergency rules. Instead, the Court found that the ORIGINAL state statutes giving the DOH its emergency authority were themselves completely invalid, for four separate reasons, because the statutes: (1)
  1. violate constitutional separation of powers
  2. violate the state’s administrative procedure act
  3. are inconsistent with other public health laws; and
  4. violate constitutional equal protection. 


“[DOH] regulations break our three-branch system of government in ways that a middle-school civics student would recognize, because they place the creation of orders or laws, and enforcement of those laws, into the hands of an unelected official.” (1)

The Court cited a 2020 Michigan Supreme Court case (1):

“It is incumbent on the courts to ensure decisions are made according to the rule of law, not hysteria … One hopes that this great principle — essential to any free society, including ours — will not itself become yet another casualty of Covid-19.” (1)


  • The Court found that the Missouri emergency health statutes were constitutionally flawed because they create “double delegation.” The judge said the state had delegated rulemaking power to the DOH, which then delegated “broad rulemaking power to an unelected official.” This type of double delegation, said the Court, “is an impermissible combination of legislative and administrative power.” It also explained that the regulations “violate the principle of separation of powers by unlawfully placing unguided and unbridled rulemaking power in the hands of a public official.” (1)
  • The judge cited, among other cases, Florida’s lawsuit against the CDC’s “conditional sailing order.” Relying on the cited cases, he listed all the ways that the state’s public health statutes violated separation of powers:(1)
  1. the statutes created “open-ended discretion—a catch-all to permit naked lawmaking by bureaucrats;”
  2. the laws failed to provide any STANDARDS to guide local emergency orders;
  3. the laws not only provided no standards, but they are “limitless, standardless, and lack adequate legislative guidance;”
  4. the laws fail to “provide any procedural safeguards for those aggrieved by the orders;” and
  5. they “create a system of statewide health governance that enables unelected officials to become accountable to no one.”


  • The judge wrote that plaintiff Robinson had produced “ample evidence” that local health supervisors used the emergency health laws to “exercise unbridled and unfettered personal authority to, in effect, legislate.”(1)

The judge stated: 

“Local health directors have created generally applicable orders, both in writing and verbally, requiring individuals within their jurisdictions to wear masks, limit gathering sizes in people’s own homes, creating capacity restrictions, limiting usage of school and business facilities including tables, desks, and even lockers, mandating spacing between people, [and] ordering students be excluded from school via quarantine and isolation rules created by health directors based on masking or other criteria not adequately” constrained by legal standards.(1)

  • The Court held that the statutes’ authorization of local health directors to create and enforce their own orders, and take other “control measures” were “unconstitutional and … therefore invalid.”(1)

The judge concluded:

“[t]his system is entirely inconsistent with representative government and separation of powers and makes a mockery of our Missouri Constitution and the concept of separation of powers.”….“Missouri’s local health authorities have grown accustomed to issuing edicts and coercing compliance. It is far past time for this unconstitutional conduct to stop.”(1)


  • The Court’s actual orders were:
  1. among other things, the judge instructed the Secretary of State to “remov[e] the invalid regulations from the register” — which effectively deletes all the state’s emergency public health statutes. (1)
  2. He also ordered the Missouri DOH to “provide a copy of this order to all local health authorities throughout Missouri, and to post it … in locations where the same is made publicly available[.]”(1)
  3. Then he ordered the Department of Health to pay all the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.(1)



  • St. Louis County government attorneys have determined the ruling does not affect its rules, since it is not involved in the case, county spokesman Doug Moore said. (2)

“St. Louis County is not a party to that lawsuit,” Moore wrote in a statement. “The next hearing in the St. Louis County mask case is Nov. 30. We hope everyone will follow the masking and social distancing practices that public health experts recommend over the Thanksgiving holidays.” (2)

  • In St. Louis, city lawyers think the ruling does not apply because the city’s health orders were not enacted under the rule that was overturned, a representative for Jones said. The city is operating under the legislature’s June law requiring legislative bodies to pass a mandate every 30 days and the city’s charter gives the Board of Aldermen the authority to enact health orders by resolution once they are issued. (2)

“In short, our opinion at this point is that the ruling out of Cole County does not apply to us because we weren’t operating under that rule that was overturned,” said Nick Dunne, the mayor’s spokesman in a voicemail. (2)


  • A spokesman for Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt who represented the state in the suit said: “We’re aware of the Court’s ruling and are prepared to enforce compliance with the Court’s order across the state,” (2)
  • It would be unusual for the attorney general not to appeal this ruling, said James R. Layton, a former state solicitor general. (2)

“I can’t think of an instance in the past where a declaration that a regulation was invalid was not appealed, especially one that would have this broad of impact,” ….The ruling does not necessarily mean every health mandate enacted by a local government is void….“The judge has ruled that the Department of Health and Senior Services regulation that expressly gives local health authorities the ability to act, that that regulation is invalid,” Layton said. “But I really don’t know how many of the regulations that are currently in place were implemented in reliance on that authority.”(2)

  • Local government advocates said the ruling sets a worrying precedent.

“We are concerned about the erosion of local authority in many areas, including public health,” said Richard Sheets, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, the statewide group of local government officials. “Our city officials are split on mask mandates … [but] what we do oppose is the state taking away a locally elected governing body’s authority to make local decisions.” (2)


Further Research




source: ….


source: ….

Back to All Cases