Appeals Court Upholds COVID-19 Jab Mandate
A federal appeals court ruled the Los Angeles Unified School District and other government agencies could force workers to receive a COVID-19 jab as a condition of employment.
“On July 31, a full panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier ruling from their colleagues, declaring now that the L.A. Unified School District (LAUSD) didn’t violate the constitutional rights of workers who were fired after they refused to get Covid shots,” Legal Newsline reports.
“So basically, the courts are now saying that gov’t is strong enough to constitutionally strip rights of citizens and force injection of gene altering serum, but it is not strong enough to have the authority to remove invaders,” said The Blaze Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz.
So basically, the courts are now saying that gov't is strong enough to constitutionally strip rights of citizens and force injection of gene altering serum, but it is not strong enough to have the authority to remove invaders. Anarcho-tyranny at its finest https://t.co/HCIKqn5uFw
— Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) August 1, 2025
According to the outlet, the court’s majority refused to hear evidence that the ‘vaccines’ actually worked to prevent individuals from catching the so-called virus.
Instead, the court relied on the 120-year-old Jacobson v. Massachusetts U.S. Supreme Court decision to defend its ruling.
More from Legal Newsline:
Instead, the majority said it mattered only that the government declared the shots were “effective in preventing and spreading the disease.”
They grounded the ruling in the longstanding U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Jacobson v Massachusetts. That decision, which authorized Massachusetts public health officials to force vaccine skeptics to receive smallpox inoculations in 1905, has been used by governments ever since to enforce vaccine mandates.
“Jacobson holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease,” the majority wrote.
“Whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety is committed to policymakers, not a court or a jury. Further, alleged scientific uncertainty over a vaccine’s efficacy is irrelevant under Jacobson. Jacobson simply does not allow debate in the courts over whether a mandated vaccine prevents the spread of disease. Jacobson makes clear that it is up to the political branches, within the parameters of rational basis review, to decide whether a vaccine effectively protects public health and safety,” the majority wrote.
Ninth Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote the majority decision, with Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and circuit judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Consuelo M. Callahan, Bridget S. Bade, Danielle J. Forrest, Salvador Mendoza Jr., and Roopali H. Desai joining the ruling.
Federal appeals court upholds Los Angeles COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Says under 1905 Supreme Court decision, "alleged scientific uncertainty over a vaccine’s efficacy is irrelevant." https://t.co/pk1aNpHzXT
— Zachary Stieber (@ZackStieber) August 1, 2025
The Epoch Times provided further details:
The mandate, put into place in 2021 by the Los Angeles Unified School District and rescinded in 2023, was constitutional because officials “could have reasonably concluded that COVID-19 vaccines would protect the health and safety of its employees and students,” U.S. Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Health Freedom Defense Fund and other groups challenged the mandate, arguing that it violated constitutional rights such as the right to refuse medical treatment. Because COVID-19 vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, instead only reducing symptoms, they are medical treatments and not traditional vaccines, the organizations told the court. That means the mandate is not protected by a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld a smallpox vaccine mandate, they said.
Read the full ruling HERE.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at 100 Percent Fed Up.