NY Mandate Case: Supreme Court

NY Mandate Case: Supreme Court

NY Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Re: the Legality of Mandating Vaccines to City Employees


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: 2021-Oct 2022
  • Location: New York City
  • Court: Supreme Court of NY
  • Case #: 85163/2022
  • Plaintiff: NY Sanitation Workers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Chad LaVeglia
  • Defendant: City of NY, DOHMH, Dept of Sanitation & NY Mayor Adams
  • Trial Type: Supreme Court of NY
  • Judge: Ralph J. Porzio
  • Status: Decided (Oct 24 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated Oct 27, 2022



One year ago in October 2021, New York City enacted a Covid vaccine mandate which required all city staff to show proof that they obtained at least one jab. Employees who did not comply by Oct. 29 were subject to termination. [1]

Despite the fact that they continued to work full-time for nearly four months after the mandate began, the unvaccinated plaintiffs were fired in February 2022 after they received “generalized and vague denials” of their shot exemptions. [1]

Mayor Eric Adams expanded the mandate to private sector employees in December 2021 [1] and then backtracked on March 24, 2022, Mayor Adams enacted Executive Order No. 62, which provided blanket exemptions from the private employers’ vaccine mandate for athletes, performers, and other artists [2]

Nearly 1,500 New York City workers including police officers lost their jobs due to the city’s discriminatory jab mandate. Hundreds of others left their places of employment after being forced to choose between their job and their autonomy. [1]

As a result, thousands of New Yorkers protested the state’s medical coercion of state workers, health-care workers, and teachers. They also expressed frustration with the city’s attempt to force businesses to require verified “vaccine passports” in exchange for goods and services when there was no proof that the shot prevented virus spread, something the court acknowledged in its ruling. [1]

According to the court filing, the Department of Sanitation employees were terminated in February 2022 for “failure to comply with vaccination requirements” after the health commissioner of the City of New York, David Chokshi, issued a vaccination mandate requiring all city employees to show “proof of at least one dose of vaccination against COVID-19” by Oct. 29. [2]




This case has the potential to undo every vaccine mandate across the USA and to expose the faulty science behind covid injections.


Plaintiff’s Argument

“The petitioner’s central argument is that Mayor Adam’s Executive Order #62, the private exemption order, rendered the public employee vaccination mandate arbitrary and capricious or unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Petitioners all claim, and provided lab documentation, that they have natural immunity to Covid19 from prior infection(s).” [4]


Defendant’s Argument

“The Respondent’s central argument is that the private employers’ exemption order and the public employee vaccination mandates were “created separately and exist independently of each other.” [4]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



The sixteen New York City Department of Sanitation workers were reinstated to full employment and will receive more than eight months of back pay after the New York Supreme Court ruled that they were wrongfully terminated under the city’s “arbitrary and capricious” Covid jab mandate. [1]

Porzio’s ruling states that the Oct. 20, 2021, and Dec. 13, 2021, rulings from the commissioner of health and mental hygiene ordering that all employees get vaccinated are “arbitrary and capricious,” ordering that the petitioners be reinstated to their full employment status, and entitled to back pay in salary from date of termination. [2]

Judge Ralph J. Porzio wrote in his ruling that the vaccination mandate for city employees was “not just about safety and public health; it was about compliance.” [2]

“that if the vaccine mandate was about “safety and public health, unvaccinated workers would have been placed on leave the moment the order was issued.” [2]

“If it was about safety and public health, the Health Commissioner would have issued city-wide mandates for vaccination for all residents,” he continued. “In a City with a nearly 80% vaccination rate, we shouldn’t be penalizing the people who showed up to work, at great risk to themselves and their families, while we were locked down.” [2]

“There is nothing in the record to support the rationality of keeping a vaccination mandate for public employees, while vacating the mandate for private sector employees or creating a carveout for certain professions like athletes, artists, and performers,” the court wrote. “This is clearly an arbitrary and capricious action because we are dealing with identical unvaccinated people being treated differently by the same administrative agency.” [1]

The court also acknowledged that because the plaintiffs had natural immunity against Covid thanks to prior infections, and determined that because the city’s Board of Health “does not have the authority to unilaterally and indefinitely change the terms of employment for any agency,” the sanitation workers were wrongfully terminated. [1]

“This Court does not have a basis to disagree with temporary vaccination orders during a public health emergency, however, ordering and enforcing that vaccination policy on only a portion of the populace for an indefinite period of time, is akin to legislating,” the court wrote, noting that “states of emergency are meant to be temporary.” [1]

Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19,” the court acknowledged. “The petitioners should not have been terminated for choosing not to protect themselves. We have learned through the course of this pandemic that the vaccine against Covid-19 is not absolute.” [1]

The court found that “being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19,adding that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have the same quarantine and isolation guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [3]

“It is time for New York to do what is right and what is just,” Porzio concluded. [3]



Response from the Plaintiffs

“Yesterday marked a historic victory for sanitation workers, all the brave NYC employees who serve the public and our representative democracy,” attorney Chad LaVeglia told The Daily Signal. “The court struck down NYC’s draconian, arbitrary, vaccine mandate on multiple constitutional and legal grounds. The thousands of city employees who were ignored now have a voice. And as the court recognized, they deserve better.” [2]

“The court also recognized a commonsense principle that has somehow eluded politicians like Eric Adams: Forcing one—and only one—segment of the population to get vaccinated during a worldwide outbreak is unconstitutional and arbitrary,” he added. “Sixteen sanitation workers fought back against tyranny. And won. This is a historic victory for individual rights, and the system of government mandated by the Constitution.” [2]

“It’s null and void, essentially,” LaVeglia said in a video on the NYCforYourself Twitter account. “We just defeated the vaccine mandate for every single city employee.” [3]

Such employees included workers from the Department of Education, New York Police Department, New York Fire Department, and the Department of Corrections — among other city staff in various departments. [3]

“For all the brave men and women who have been our first responders and have been brave through all this are now free, and you should be able to go back to work,” he added. [3]


Response from the Defendant

“The city strongly disagrees with this ruling as the mandate is firmly grounded in law and is critical to New Yorkers’ public health,” a New York Law Department spokesman said on Tuesday. “We have already filed an appeal. In the meantime, the mandate remains in place as this ruling pertains solely to the individual petitioners in this case. We continue to review the court’s decision, which conflicts with numerous other rulings already upholding the mandate.” [2]


Response from FDNY-Firefighters

FDNY-Firefighters Association President Andrew Ansbro and FDNY-Fire Officers Association President Lt. James McCarthy told Fox News that the groups support revoking the vaccine mandate implemented by city officials earlier this year. [3]

FDNY Association officials blasted Mayor Adams earlier this year for exempting athletes and performers from the mandate, adding it should have been extended to all New Yorkers. [3]

“We support the revocation of the mandate for the athletes and performers that work in New York City,” McCarthy said. “We think that the people that work for New York City should also have the mandate relocated for them.” [3]

Ansbro said if Adams removed the vaccine mandate for certain people, “you need to remove it for everybody in the city.” [3]

“If you’re gonna follow the science, science is gonna tell you there isn’t any danger right now and putting hundreds of firefighters, police officers, and other emergency workers out of work is not in the best interest of the city. It’s not safe,” Ansbro said. [3]



Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



NY Supreme Court Judge Demolishes Vax Mandate -Oct 26 2022

source: Odysee/ RPLR

CDC Director Must Apologize For Misinformation -Oct 26 2022

source: Rumble/Sunfellow On COVID-19

EPM Rob Roos: Pfizer Admits Vaccines Not Tested For Prevention -Oct 20 2022

source: Rumble/Sunfellow On COVID-19



  1. New York Supreme Court Reinstates NYC Workers Fired Under ‘Arbitrary And Capricious’ Covid Jab Mandate
  2. New York Supreme Court Reinstates Unvaccinated Employees With Back Pay: ‘It Was About Compliance’
  3. New York Supreme Court Strikes Down NYC Vaccine Mandate for All City Workers; Reinstates Employees, Orders Back Pay
  4. Court Ruling



Adams, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of, DOHMH, Executive Order, Health, LaVeglia, Mandate, Mayor, Mental Hygiene, New York, NY, Porzio, Sanitation, Supreme Court, Unconstitutional, Workers 

Back to All Cases


Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate Case: Supreme Court

Re: the Legality of Vaccine Mandates


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: May 2, 2022 (decided)
  • Location: India
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Petitioner: Dr.Jacaob Puliyel
  • Petitioner’s Lawyer: Prashant Bhushan
  • Respondent: Union & State Governments of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu
  • Trial Type: Supreme Court
  • Justices: L Nageswara Rao & BR Gavai
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Petitioner

*updated May 8, 2022



a PIL filed by Dr.Jacaob Puliyel, challenging the vaccine mandates and seeking publication of the clinical trial and adverse events of vaccination. [1]

Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group of Immunization had approached the Apex Court assailing the constitutional validity of the vaccine mandates imposed by States, in particular, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. He had sought the indulgence of the Court to issue directions to the concerned authorities to disclose the data pertaining to clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines administered to adults as well as children in India, as per the requirement of International Medical norms. The petitioner also impelled the Court to revamp the Adverse Events Following Immunization Reporting System which he alleged was opaque, flawed and unknown to the public at large. [1]

Petitioner Jacob Puliyal has said that even though the central government is saying that vaccination is optional, it is not mandatory, but in states like Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, it has become mandatory.  [2]

lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that when the central government has said on many occasions, in response to statements and RTI that vaccination is not compulsory but optional, then in many states to open a shop, enter a shop or establishment. Vaccination certificates are sought on occasions such as entry of employees and people working there, walking on the streets, entering an educational institution? The petitioner, in his petition, has also referred to the circulars issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on October 8 last year, November 8 in Madhya Pradesh, November 27 in Maharashtra and November 18 in Tamil Nadu and clearly written guidelines in which vaccination should be done. Essential restrictions have been imposed. [2]

At the same time, the Central Government opposed the petition to give the data of the clinical trial of Corona vaccine and not to force the vaccine. In the Supreme Court, the central government had said that such petitions filed for the vested interest of some people can affect the vaccination process. Even an oral comment of the court can be harmful. [2]

The Center told the Supreme Court that till November 24, 2021, one billion 19 crore 38 lakh 44 thousand 741 doses of corona vaccine have been given. Out of these, 2116 cases of adverse event following immunization i.e. AEFI have been registered so far. A report of rapid review and analysis has been completed for 495 (463 Coveshield and 32 Covaxin). Another report of 1356 cases (1236 Covishield, 118 Covaxin and 2 Sputnik) of severe AEFI cases (including 495 cases already analyzed) has been submitted to NEGVAC. [2]

The remaining cases are under rapid review and analysis and will be completed soon. On behalf of the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that this petition should not be heard. This may increase hesitation for the vaccine. The country has come out of it with great difficulty. [2]

Justice Nageswara Rao had said that that is why we said that if you have some specific facts, then they should be heard. We also do not want that there should be any problem regarding vaccination. [2]

In fact, on 9 August 2021, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Central Government on the petition not to compel people to apply the vaccine and make the trial data public. However, the Supreme Court refused to impose an interim stay on forcing the vaccine to be administered. Justice L Nageswara Rao said that 50 crore people in the country have been vaccinated. The WHO has also said that vaccine hesitancy has done a lot of damage. [2]

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan had said that according to the sero report, 2/3 people have been infected with Covid. In such a situation, the anti body is more effective than the corona vaccine. Now a policy has been made that if the vaccine is not applied then one cannot travel. Many restrictions have been imposed. The government is not making clinical data public. Since the vaccine is voluntary, then if someone does not get the vaccine, then he should not be denied any facility. The petitioner’s lawyer Prashant Bhushan has filed an application asking that the clinical trial of the vaccine as well as the data regarding the adverse effect of the vaccine be made public. [2]


India made headlines last year when it refused to offer a liability shield to Pfizer or Moderna, unlike countries such as Canada — which still has a federal vaccine mandate and a ban on the unvaccinated for travel. As such, no contract was signed between India’s authorities and these vaccine manufacturers. Instead, India relied on their own domestically produced vaccines. [3]

Pfizer infamously wanted to hide their COVID trial-related data for seventy-five years but was forced by a court order to release it. As their data dumps are being made publicly available bit by bit, public outrage continues to grow. [3]




This case is the first in the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of Vaccine Mandates


Plaintiff’s Argument

Vaccine Mandates

The sheet anchor of Advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s argument against the vaccine mandates was that in the absence of clinical trial data people were restrained from providing informed consent and the same impinged on the right to self-determination protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Relying on K Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 and Common Cause v. UOI (2018) 5 SCC1, he emphasised that informed consent is necessary for medical procedures and bodily integrity is an integral part of the right to privacy. The Court was apprised that though the Government of India had indicated that vaccines are to be administered voluntarily, the States have imposed mandated restricting movement, denying essential services and curbing the right to livelihood in derogation of Articles 19 and 21. Mr. Bhushan argued that when there exists scientific evidence to substantiate the claims that nature immunity is better than vaccine-immunity; vaccination does not prevent from getting infected or transmitting; vaccines are ineffective in preventing new variants; vaccines have serious adverse effects; long-effects of the vaccine are unknown, mandating vaccination is unconstitutional. [1]

“For any vaccine to be mandated, the public health rationale underlying such a policy must be based essentially on efficacy and safety of vaccination and prevention of transmission of the disease“, Mr. Bhushan submitted. [1]

He referred to the decision of the UK Parliamentary Committee; judgement of the High Court of New Zealand in Yardley v. Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 and orders of Gujarat High Court and Meghalaya High Court sticking down vaccine mandates. [1]

Non-Disclosure of data

Mr. Bhushan submitted that the segregated data of clinical trials of vaccines must be disclosed through peer reviewed scientific journals. The disclosure would have a significant impact on determining the adverse effects of the vaccines. The significance of disclosure was asserted by placing reliance on the Nuremberg Code and Report Nos. 59 (2012) and 66 (2013) of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. [1]

He informed the Court that an RTI Application was filed enquiring whether the Subject Expert Committee had looked at the raw days and/or discussed it. Responding to the same, the Central Drugs Control Standard Organisation stated that the brief of interim clinical trial results along with Subject Expert Committee’s recommendations was publicly available on CDSCO website. Dissatisfied with the response, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Authority refused to reveal any data stating that the manufacturers had refused to disclose data publicly. [1]

Adverse Effect Following Immunization Reporting System

Mr. Bhushan submitted that besides it being an opaque and flawed system, there was a lack of public awareness about the same. [1]

Children’s Vaccine Mandate

Citing articles published in scientific journals, Mr. Bhushan argued that the overall risk from COVID-19 for children being remarkably low, it is not reasonable to vaccinate them, that too, without providing an opportunity to the parents to provide informed consent [1]

Rebuttal Arguments of the petitioner

Mr. Bhushan contended that the non-disclosure of trial data is preventing independent experts from making their own determinations. He stressed upon the petitioner’s plea that disclosure would permit the independent experts to look into the veracity of the claims of the manufacturers. In this regard, he referred to a United States District Court judgment, wherein the regulatory body was directed to disclose all the information pertaining to the Pfizer vaccine. [1]

He submitted that even considering the Government’s submission on privacy of the patients who participated in the trials, it ought to have made available segregated data. He emphasised that the assertion, vaccines significantly reduce the risk of transmitting the disease, had to be established by the Government by adducing evidence. Mr. Bhushan argued that by merely stating there exists a robust system for granting approval, it cannot be taken outside the ambit of judicial scrutiny. Mr. Bhushan asserted that the information available on the website pertains only to recommendations made by the expert bodies, but does not indicate the material on the basis of which such recommendations were made. [1]

With respect to the adverse reporting system, he pointed out that only the vaccinator can report such effects; the public at large have no knowledge about the reporting system and only known adverse effects can be reported. [1]


Defendant’s Argument

Argument from State Government of the Union Government

Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta at the outset, had questioned the bona fides of the petitioner. He contended that by way of a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner cannot seek raw data of the clinical trial of the COVID-19 vaccines, merely to satisfy his curiosity, nor can he sit in judgment of the wisdom of domain experts. He refuted the claim of serious adverse effects. According to the official record till 13.03.2022, 1,80,13,23,547 doses had been administered and 77314 people or 0.004% of the vaccinated population had been adversely affected. Refuting the submissions made by Mr. Bhushan, alleging irregularities in the vaccine approval process, he took the Court through the statutory framework and submitted that the same had been adhered to while granting approval. Referring to the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005, he demonstrated the wide ambit of power entrusted upon the Central Government to take measures during a pandemic. [1]

Mr. Mehta vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner that there was a lack of mechanism for addressing adverse effects from immunization. On the issue of disclosure of clinical trial data, it was asserted that the same was in the teeth of confidentiality provisions. It was highlighted that the Helsinki Declaration and the WHO statement relied upon by the petitioner to seek raw clinical trial data only refers to the obligation to disclose final results, findings and outcomes which have already been disclosed.

Addressing the issue of children’s vaccine mandate, it was argued that evidence provided by the petitioner is based on mRNA vaccine, whereas the vaccine being administered in India was inactivated virus vaccines. It was further pointed out that for pediatric vaccines there is a statutory regime in place, which is being strictly followed. [1]

Mr. Mehta referred to a catena of foreign judgments with respect to vaccination in general, and the vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in particular to indicate that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to other factors, like legitimate aim; and the necessity to achieve that aim.

Moreover he argued that the vaccine mandate is a matter of policy; a matter of scientific adjudication and the scope of judicial review in policy matters, especially when the executive decision is based on expert opinion, is limited. [1]


Argument from State Government of Tamil Nadu

Appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, its Additional Advocate General, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari submitted that the State Government has exercised power under Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to mandate vaccination for accessing public spaces. The mandate was justified, broadly on three grounds : [1]

  1. It prevents mutation

  2. Unvaccinated people causes health risk and

  3. Economic impact.


Argument from State Government of Maharashtra

Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the Government has mandated vaccination to enter shops, malls etc., and also to avail public transportation, but the same would pass the test of proportionality as expounded by the Apex Court in Modern Dental College And Research Centre And Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh. [1]

Argument from State Government of Madhya Pradesh

The Counsel adopted the submissions made by the Solicitor General about the need to balance rights. It was also clarified that the Government did not intend to make vaccines mandatory to avail ration. On the contrary, the purpose of the notification was to encourage individuals to get vaccinated. [1]

Argument from the Vaccine Manufacturers

Senior Advocate, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for Bharat Biotech, controverted Mr. Bhushan’s argument that Phase III Trial of the vaccine has not been published. Moreover, it was emphasised that WHO guidelines referred to by the petitioner do not mandate the disclosure of the primary data and only the analysis of the data. Reliance was placed on Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act which exempts the disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. The Counsel appearing for SII also opposed the petitioner’s plea for disclosure. [1]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

decision of the UK Parliamentary Committee; judgement of the High Court of New Zealand in Yardley v. Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 and orders of Gujarat High Court and Meghalaya High Court sticking down vaccine mandates. [1]



The Supreme Court on Monday held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate. [1]

The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are “not proportionate. The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons. [1]

The Government is entitled to impose restrictions on individual rights in public health interests, but the restrictions should meet the 3-fold requirement legality, need and proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment. [1]

“No data has been provided by the Union of India or States before us controverting the material placed by petitioner which indicates that the risk of tranmission by unvaccinated is at par with vaccinated.In light of this the vaccine mandates cannot be said to be proportionate till the infection rate remains low and new development of research emergence which justifies the mandate”, the Court stated. [1]

Therefore, the Court suggested that all authorities, including private institutions and educational institutions, should review the restrictions on the unvaccinated. The Court however clarified that this direction is confined to the present context of the COVID pandemic situation. It further clarified that it does not extend to any other directions on COVID-19 appropriate behaviour issued by the authorities. [1]

Union’s vaccine policy not unreasonable or arbitrary.

The Court also held that the policy of the Union Governemnt on COVID-19 vaccination policy is reasonable. It also held that the clinical trial data of the vaccines have been published in accordance with the relevant norms. The material provided by the Union of India does not support the conclusion that emergency use approval has been granted in haste. [1]

Publish reports on Adverse Events

The Court also directed the Union of India to publish reports on Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) from public and doctors on a publicly accessible system without compromising data of the individuals who are reporting the same. [1]

Vaccination for children approved

Regarding vaccine for children, the Court said that it is not possible for us to second guess the opinion of experts and the vaccination indeed follows the global standards and practices. [1]

“On pediatric vaccine, it is in tune with international standards. We direct the Union of India to make sure the key findings of the stages of trial already approved for children be made public at the earliest”, the Court said. [1]

The Court rejected the arguments against the maintainability of the writ petition. Though executive has wide latitude in policy matters, it does not bar the Courts from scrutinizing if the policy is beyond the pale of arbitrariness.



…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

On Corona Cases



Supreme Court of India rules against vaccine mandates

source: RebelNews

Yohan Tengra: India Supreme Court Stops C19 Vaccine Mandates

source: WorldCouncilForHealth

Supreme Court Upholds Individual’s Right Against Forcible Vaccination

source: NDTV

Pfizer Vaccine Data Analyzed

source: canadiancovidcarealliance.org

12 yr old Vaccine Trial Victim, Maddie

source: shortXXvids

source: …





Adverse, Adverse Events Following Immunisation, AEFI, Bharat Biotech, Bhushan, constitution, Delhi, Disaster Management Act, Effects, Epidemic Diseases Act, India, informed consent, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mehta, Nuremberg Code, Puliyel, Reporting, Reporting System, Side, Supreme Court, System, Tamil Nadu, Unconstitutional, Vaccine Mandate 

Back to All Cases


Vaccine Pass Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Pass Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Pass Case: Supreme Court

Re: the Legality of imposing “Passports” to legitimize health as a condition for entering restaurants, hotels, clubs & other hospitality venues


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Feb 2, 2022
  • Location: Czech Republic
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: woman from Brno
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: Health Ministry
  • Trial Type: Supreme Court
  • Judge: Chief Justice Peter Mikes
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated Feb 3, 2022



The Supreme Court -Nejvyšší správní soud (NSS)- heard a lawsuit filed by a woman from Brno challenging the Covid Health Pass aka Digital Green Certificates. The provisions (established Dec 29, 2021) prohibit customers from entering food service establishments, music, dance, gambling and similar social clubs and discos, gambling halls and casinos, and from using short-term and vacation accommodation services unless they meet what the ministry calls “infection-free” conditions. These conditions are either completion of vaccination or having contracted covid-19 within the last 180 days. Only in exceptional circumstances is it possible to prove oneself by PCR test. [1]

This case comes at a time when several European countries are lifting Emergency restrictions, including the UK, Denmark, Bosnia.

Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin has announced that the country will be lifting all Wuhan coronavirus restrictions by mid-February as the country starts easing some restrictions this week. [2] https://t.co/ACwJZuE0vl



This case is highly important as it challenges the very fundamentals of the Rights of the individual in a “free” society.


Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

In Spain, [2]

the Basque High Court ruled against the introduction of the vaccine passport for certain venues in November, arguing the measure was unjustified.

Despite the ruling, the vaccine passport was later approved after the case was taken to the Spanish supreme court in December.

Just months prior in August, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that Spain’s 2020 strict lockdown policies had been unconstitutional but claimed that businesses and people were not eligible to take the government to court to sue for monetary damages incurred during the lockdowns.



  • The Supreme Administrative Court (NSS) has dealt another heavy blow to the Health Ministry’s measures restricting the operation of restaurants or accommodation in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. The court overturned an extraordinary measure, according to which people without completed vaccinations or after an illness were banned from entering catering establishments, clubs and short-term accommodation. [1]
  • The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic has ordered the abolition of vaccine passports for restaurants, hotels, and other venues, arguing that the measure is tantamount to vaccination coercion, and therefore not legal. [3]

  • The judges left the measure in place for one more week, after which it will cease to apply. [1]
  • Judge Mikeš ruled that the government’s pandemic laws do not allow for the specific regulation of restaurants, clubs and hotels and that measures would only be justified if the government could prove the entire country was at risk of the Wuhan coronavirus or if the government were to enact a state of emergency and use emergency powers to force venues to accept the vaccine passport. [2]

“The Supreme Administrative Court has already stated in the past that the Ministry of Health has no basis for restricting this type of establishment in the so-called Pandemic Act, unless it is technical measures, such as the use of disinfection or the placement of seating,” Mikeš stated. [2]

  • According to NSS Chief Justice Peter Mikes, the ministry had no support in the pandemic law for restricting services. [1]

“The ministry has no justification for restricting these types of establishments in the so-called pandemic law, unless they are technical measures, such as the use of disinfection or the placement of seating. The ministry could only restrict their activities under the Public Health Protection Act, but only against persons suspected of being infected,” Mikes explained, adding

that not everyone can be suspected of being infected without further ado. This would only be conceivable if the entire Czech Republic was designated as an outbreak.


The aim of the measure cannot be to indirectly force citizens to vaccinate

The state may not force people to vaccinate, referring to the ministry’s argumentation, which is voluntary. [1]

“However, the aim of the measure cannot be to indirectly force citizens to vaccinate. This would turn voluntary vaccination into compulsory vaccination by means of an emergency measure, since unvaccinated persons would have no choice but to be vaccinated if they wanted to live a normal life,” Mikeš stressed. [1]

  • Supreme Administrative Court Judge Petr Mikes described the measure banning unvaccinated people from going to restaurants as illegal. [1]
  • “The ministry has three options under the current legislation. [1]
  1. Either assess the situation to be so bad that everyone can be considered suspected of being infected,
  2. or appeal to the government to declare a state of emergency.
  3. And of course there is the option of leaving the area unregulated,” Mikes said.
  • The SAC erred when it did not address the objection to the recognition of antibodies, the Constitutional Court ruled [1]

“Under the current wording of the Pandemic Act, the Ministry of Health could only adopt a similar regulation if the conditions of the Public Health Protection Act were met. If these conditions are not met, then it is up to the government to decide whether it is able to manage the pandemic without such regulation or whether this is not the case, and if other conditions are met, this is grounds for declaring a state of emergency and adopting similar regulation through a government emergency measure,” Mikes added. [1]



Statement from Prime Minister Petr Fiala

The Czech Republic will stop requiring COVID passes for entry to restaurants and other service or entertainment venues starting next week, opening them up to unvaccinated people, Prime Minister Petr Fiala said. [3]

As Novinky.cz reports, the change will take effect on February 9, following a decision by Czech cabinet ministers on Wednesday evening. [3]

“Taking into account current developments, the government will abolish the obligation to prove with a certificate of vaccination or negative test when entering restaurants, services, cultural and sports events on February 9,” said Prime Minister Petr Fiala (ODS).

According to Fiala, the obligation to wear respirators indoors will remain in force. “According to experts, it proves to be highly effective and at the same time minimally restrictive,” he said.

The limit on the number of participants in mass events will also continue to apply, added Fiala. [3]

  • Measures requiring mask wearing indoors and limits to the number of people at public events will remain. [3]
  • Those who have not suffered from covid-19 or are not vaccinated will also be able to enter restaurants and hotels. [3]
  • Compulsory wide-ranging coronavirus testing at work and in schools will also end on February 18. [3]


Statement from Health Minister Vlastimil Válek 

Health Minister Vlastimil Válek (TOP 09) first planned to comment on the verdict at a government press conference. However, he commented on the verdict at the plenary session of the lower house, which is dealing with an amendment to the pandemic law, saying that this is why the norm needs to be adopted. The SPD MPs are complicating its discussion by obstructing it. [1]

The minister supports amendments to the controversial pandemic law, which entail a wider range of COVID-19 restrictions, including the introduction of mandatory testing of entrepreneurs, students, and teachers, as well as a separate set of measures by the defence and interior ministries.

If the amendment to the pandemic law were already in force, the current situation would not have arisen, according to Válek. “This measure would be unassailable,” Válek told the plenary. [1]

Válek told Novosti on Saturday that entry to restaurants for the unvaccinated is under discussion in the Czech Republic. [1]

Despite Válek’s support for more pandemic laws, he also stated

“I believe that in March we will be able to cancel all [coronavirus] measures to the maximum. The current development of the epidemic and the forecast for the near future prove that [it is possible],” Valek said at a meeting with lawmakers. [4]


The Supreme Court has other actions on the table against existing measures, and it is possible that it will overturn them on similar grounds. [1]


Further Research

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





source: ….


source: ….


source: ….



  1. Konec. Soud pustil neočkované do restaurací
  2. Czech Court Abolishes Vaccine Passports For Restaurants and Hotels
  3. BREAKING: Czech Government to End COVID passes as of February 9
  4. Czech Health Minister Expects All COVID Measures to Be Lifted in March



antibodies, Chief Justice Peter Mikes, constitution, Constitutional Court, Covid Health Pass, Czech, Czech Republic, Digital Green Certificates, Health Minister, Ministry of Health, Nejvyšší správní soud, NSS, Pandemic Act, Public Health Protection Act, Supreme Court, TOP 09, Unconstitutional, Vaccine, Válek, Vlastimil

Back to All Cases