What the Supreme Court Ruling Means for Future Vaccine Mandates, and What SCOTUS Got Wrong

The ruling leaves Federal Employees' health choices at the whim of whatever sitting President believes about vaccines - and the COVID19 jab proved that's as arbitrary and capricious as things come.

This post is dedicated to the members of Feds for Freedom.

NOTE: KUDOS TO THOSE WHO TRIED. I HOPE THIS IS READ BY THE RIGHT LAWYERS AT THE RIGHT TIME. IT’S VERY IMPORTANT. READ ON AND SHARE.

The Supreme Court recently addressed three district court rulings on vaccine mandates, which originated from district courts and rose to appellate courts. Here are some points in brief:

- Appeals courts had conflicting decisions on the vaccine mandate, especially concerning federal employees' ability to challenge mandates in court.

- The Fifth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the administration's right to impose mandates, but a different appellate court granted the plaintiffs' motion against the mandates.

- The Biden Administration rescinded vaccine mandates in May 2023, making the appeals moot. Consequently, the Supreme Court, on December 11, 2023, declared the issue moot and asked district courts to dismiss the cases.

- This ruling means that the district courts' decisions won't become permanent precedents. If future administrations impose mandates, these cases can't be used as precedent, and the issues would need to be relitigated.

- The Supreme Court did not hear arguments on the case but directed the district court to vacate its preliminary injunction as moot.

- The decision prevents the Fifth Circuit's ruling from becoming a restrictive precedent on the president's capacity to issue federal workforce mandates.

- The Supreme Court set aside lower rulings after deeming the dispute moot, clearing the way for future mandates without the weight of previous decisions.

- The court's decision provides a clean legal slate for any future vaccine mandates.

While the Supreme Court's decision is seen by some as a win for the administration and future presidents, removing potentially restrictive precedents, Feds for Medical Freedom has expressed disappointment, emphasizing the importance of bodily autonomy and medical freedom.

- The decision means plaintiffs must start from scratch if a similar requirement is issued in the future.

The Supreme Court's decision to declare the vaccine mandate cases moot removes existing legal precedents and clears the path for potential future mandates, requiring new litigation if such mandates are implemented again.

What SCOTUS Got Wrong

I have argued and published repeatedly that vaccine mandates effectively mandate subjugation of persons to experimentation. This obviously true because long-term safety and efficacy s done via retrospective studies using systems like VSAFE, the VSD, and VAERS. This particularly so in the context of vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or those requiring further long-term study, can be framed within the context of the ethical guidelines outlined in the Common Rule (45 CFR part 46). This perspective if firmly founded on the principles of informed consent and the protection of human subjects in research. Here's the winning argument:

Informed Consent and the Common Rule

Informed Consent (45 CFR 46.116): The Common Rule requires that informed consent be obtained from research subjects. This consent must be voluntarily given and based on a full understanding of the research's nature and risks.

Vaccine mandates, particularly for vaccines that are still being studied post-market or are under EUA, bypass the principle of informed consent, as individuals are compelled to receive the vaccine without the option to decline. This is a crystal-clear violation of 45 CFR 46.116, which stipulates that participation in research should be voluntary.

The Nature of EUA and Ongoing Research

Emergency Use Authorization: Vaccines under EUA are typically authorized for emergency use during public health crises, like a pandemic. These vaccines have been tested for safety and efficacy but are still subject to ongoing research and data collection. Mandating such vaccines results in enrolling individuals into form of ongoing human subjects research without their explicit consent as required under the Common Rule.

Ethical Principles in Research are Also Violated

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (45 CFR 46.111(a)(2)): The requirement to minimize harm and maximize benefits in research can easily be brought into question with mandates. Because long-term effects of a vaccine are not fully understood, mandating its use conflicts with these ethical principles.

Application to General Public vs. Research Subjects

Generalizability of the Common Rule: One critical aspect of this argument is the extension of the Common Rule's principles, typically applied to formal research settings, to public health mandates. Individuals under a vaccine mandate are, in effect, part of an ongoing research process, thus the protections of the Common Rule should apply. Any individual involved in the coercion of persons into accepting a vaccine should be seen as in violation of the common rule. That includes Presidents, employers, schools, public health officials.

Public health and public health policies sit under the US Constitution, not above it.

Vaccine mandates, especially for vaccines still under study or authorized for emergency use, are view properly as a form of human subjects research that requires the informed consent of participants as outlined in the Common Rule. The CDC routinely requires that investigators have an IRB approval to re-analyze their retrospective studies; we have proof of this, and it proves that retrospective studies on vaccine safety are, in fact, seen as human subjects research.

The lack of an option to decline participation in these mandates is clear a violation of the ethical principles governing human subjects research, particularly those related to voluntary participation and informed consent.

What the Lack of Precedence Means

The lack of precedent also means that we are left with conflicting laws at the state and Federal level for Federal employees, who hold individual, state-level rights but are also subject to Federal laws.

The lack of precedent may be bad news for informed, thinking citizens. There does remain, however, precedents of state laws winning over federal laws. There have been many instances of federal laws being changed to match better, fairer, and more ethical state laws.

One such example is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act was passed to end racial segregation in public places and to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Prior to this act, many states had its own laws that allowed for segregation and discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation that helped to bring about significant change in the United States.

Clean Air Act of 1963. This act was passed to address the issue of air pollution and to establish federal regulations for air quality. Prior to this act, many states had their own laws regulating air pollution, but these laws were often inadequate. The Clean Air Act of 1963 helped to establish a more comprehensive and effective system for regulating air pollution in the United States.

There are many other examples of federal laws being changed to address issues such as voting rights, workplace safety, and environmental protection.

Voting Rights Act of 1965: This landmark legislation was enacted to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Prior to this act, many states had laws and practices that effectively disenfranchised African American voters.

Fair Housing Act of 1968: Part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, this federal law was passed to eliminate housing discrimination and to integrate neighborhoods. It was a response to state and local laws that either permitted or did not adequately address discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and later sex, disability, and family status.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA): This act was established to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for workers by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance. Before OSHA, several states had varying degrees of protection for worker safety, but there was no comprehensive federal policy.

Endangered Species Act of 1973: This act was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development unchecked by adequate concern and conservation. Some states had their own laws for wildlife protection, but the federal law provided a more comprehensive approach to preserving biodiversity.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - IDEA): This law was enacted to ensure that children with disabilities had the opportunity to receive a free appropriate public education, just like other children. The law came into being in part because of disparities in state laws regarding the education of children with disabilities.

These examples all provide precedent for how federal legislation has often been supplanted by state laws and societal shifts, leading to more uniform and fair policies across the United States, often involving civil rights.

The US government does not have the right to enslave people to make them use their immune systems in any way they themselves have not decided, given full knowledge of risk and benefits, the risks involves and the reality of the benefits, or the lack thereof.

I do not mean to insult the good work of anyone who has attempted this fight prior to today, but I sincerely hope this is read by the right lawyers at the right time.

Please share.