This Could Be A Very Important Covid Regime Case

The case in question is Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) et al. v. Alberto Carvalho—Carvalho is the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LAUSD still has a mandate in place for all employees, requiring them to participate in a medical experiment, via mRNA injection. HFDF is suing on several grounds. Most importantly, in my opinion, is the contention that the mandate is “arbitrary.” The case was dismissed by the District Court on flimsy grounds—it seems clear that the judge was simply dodging responsibility. The case is now in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and just had oral arguments. An official for HFDF discusses the case and what happened at the oral arguments at Brownstone Institute:

Oral Argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Alberto Carvalho

Here’s what the basis for the case is:

The plaintiffs contend that LAUSD acted arbitrarily when it fired hundreds of employees and displaced hundreds more who had requested exemptions to the mandate. Moreover, the terminations took place even though it was already known that the injections prevented neither transmission nor infection. Thus, the plaintiffs contend, the injections amounted to nothing more than a therapeutic, lacking any public health justification, and as such are a private matter.

Or, to put it another way, LAUSD was mandating an injection—a medical procedure—without any “rational basis” for doing so. At least two of the three judges on the appeals panel picked up on that immediately—something the district court should have done. Here’s what “rational basis” is about, from Wikipedia:

In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law [or other government action, here a “mandate”] is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, whether real or hypothetical.

Remarkably, the lawyer for the LAUSD argued that the burden is on the challengers—the district can mandate pretty much anything it wants and anyone unhappy about the mandate has to prove that it has no rational basis:

unless it has been established that the injection does not work, LAUSD has the right to mandate it.

HFDF, of course, pointed out that, in fact, the mRNA has been proven not to work, both “n the scientific literature, [and] in the real world.”

By HFDF’s account, things went badly for LAUSD at the oral arguments:

One of the three judges admitted he was “shocked” and “floored” by LAUSD’s ongoing Covid-19 vaccine mandate for its employees as well as by LAUSD’s “irrational” justification for the policy.

Another judge expressed his concern over the breadth of the district court’s decision and declared that the district court’s rationale was clearly wrong.

That’s two out of three judges—a nice place to be on appeal. Samples of the questions that the judges posed to LAUSD. Note the emphasis on rational basis:

When LAUSD’s counsel, Connie Michaels, addressed the panel, the judges peppered her with questions, such as: Does it matter whether the shot stops transmission? If the shots don’t stop transmission, what’s the argument for them? Is there any law anywhere that qualifies Jacobson? [Jacobson is a lawsuit brought to the US Supreme Court in 1905, which will be explained in further detail below.] What is the rational basis for saying that a vaccine mandated three years ago continues to work today? What if LAUSD is still requiring the shot twenty years from now, when there is no emergency? How did the school district come up with the premise that it doesn’t matter whether the shot is effective or not?

My hope is that this case could break through the stonewalling of the Covid Regime. The judges appear to be demanding a scientific—i.e., “rational”—justification for mandating participation in a medical experiment. While I don’t know what amicus briefs may have been filed, importantly, HFDF do raise the issue of side effects in their opening brief:

By the time it issued the policy—after rescinding its first policy during an earlier lawsuit—the district knew that the Covid-19 shot did not prevent people from becoming infected with or spreading the virus that causes Covid-19. According to most official sources, the most the shot could arguably do was to reduce an infected person’s symptoms. Thus, it is a therapeutic, no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness. Like any medicine, the Covid-19 shot has potential side effects. Thus, millions of people have declined to take the shot, including the individual plaintiffs in this lawsuit, who worked for LAUSD and who were fired from their jobs because they declined to inject themselves with the Covid-19 shots, as the district ordered them to do.

Weighing the risk of taking an experimental gene therapy medication against possible—even likely—side effects is a key part to establishing the rational basis for such a mandate. Or the lack of a rational basis. “Rational basis” is exactly the issue that needs to be presented in court.

Follow the link for a discussion of the Jacobson case—it was a smallpox case from long ago, 1905. It seems to me to be readily distinguishable from this case on the facts, but you can decide for yourself.

There’s an interesting anecdote at the end of the article that indicates that LAUSD is quite aware that they’re on the losing end. It should remind you of the tactic adopted in the 2nd Amendment case in NM by the governor. This anecdote tells you all you need to know about these people:

A final note, after the Court had adjourned and our attorney and LAUSD’s attorney, Connie Michaels, were walking through the gate from the argument lectern to the gallery, she turned and bitterly spat “What are you going to do when the board rescinds the policy!”

She knew that the hearing had not gone well for LAUSD and, in the heat of the moment, she tipped her hand. LAUSD will likely try to rescind the mandate so that the school district can then argue the case is moot to avoid depositions, discovery, and a trial. This would be a cynical move laying bare that neither LAUSD nor its attorneys give a darn about their employees, their rights, whether the injections work, or the Constitution, they just want power – to do virtually anything.

Let’s hope LAUSD does not rescind the mandate, and if it does, let’s hope the court does not fall for it.

And, of course, there are all sorts of other Covid Regime mandates that are ripe for challenge on the same basis. Or for legislative action. That’s the real problem—failure of the legislators to protect the interests of the public and to take their responsibilities seriously. That’s a sign of how degenerate our system has become.