The Ninth Circuit Rules—Court-Sanctioned Authoritarianism?

On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled against plaintiffs in the case Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al., which challenged the Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) mandate for Covid vaccinations among employees. This decision reversed a previous ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

1. Court Ruling Context:

• The case stemmed from the November 2021 lawsuit against LAUSD regarding mandatory Covid vaccinations, which the plaintiffs argued were ineffective at preventing transmission and lacked a public health justification.

• They referenced the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, asserting it was not applicable due to differing circumstances, particularly the severity and historical effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine.

2. Ninth Circuit's Argument:

• Judge Bennett, representing the majority, concluded that if a government official believes a vaccine aids public health, the actual efficacy of the vaccine is irrelevant.

• The court stated that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right, contrasting this case with historical precedents recognizing individual rights in medical choices.

3. Critique of the Ruling:

• Critics argue that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling expands government power over personal medical decisions. The implication is that future mandates could be set without evidence of public health benefit, raising concerns about government overreach.

• It was argued that the ruling ignored the lack of recent Supreme Court decisions supporting the Ninth Circuit's interpretations and failed to recognize constitutional limits on state power.

4. Precedents Ignored:

• The Ninth Circuit was said to have disregarded the established rights to refuse medical treatment, as outlined in more recent Supreme Court cases, leading to concerns about its interpretation of Jacobson.

• The court did not consider contradictions between Covid vaccination definitions and the historical context of vaccinations that truly prevent disease.

5. Fears of Future Policies:

• The ruling raises questions about possible future mandates for various treatments under public health pretenses, which could include psychological interventions or lifestyle regulations, essentially giving the state unchecked power over individual health.

6. Judicial Accountability:

• Critics expressed concern over the Ninth Circuit’s lack of engagement in the ruling process, questioning the integrity and accountability of the court, and suggesting that the ruling undermines the trust in judicial systems regarding the protection of individual liberties.

The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in favor of vaccine mandates has significant implications for public health policy and individual rights. By allowing governmental authority to mandate medical interventions based solely on perceived public health benefits, the ruling poses a critical challenge to the limits of state power and individual autonomy. The responses from critics underscore the necessity of judicial accountability in safeguarding civil liberties against potential overreach. 

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-ninth-circuit-rules-court-sanctioned-authoritarianism/