Appeals Court Upholds COVID-19 Jab Mandate

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Los Angeles Unified School District, along with other government entities, acted within their constitutional rights when they required employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of employment. The decision came from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a previous ruling and found that the district did not violate the rights of workers who were terminated for refusing the shots.

The court’s majority based its ruling on a precedent set over a century ago—specifically, the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. That decision allowed state officials to mandate smallpox vaccinations and has since been used to justify various government-imposed vaccine mandates. The majority in this recent decision emphasized that the constitutionality of such mandates doesn’t rest on whether the vaccine actually works, but rather whether government officials could reasonably conclude it would protect public health.

Critics of the decision, including The Blaze editor Daniel Horowitz, have sharply criticized the court for its logic. He argued that while the government appears to have the authority to force medical injections on citizens, it seemingly lacks the will or legal power to remove individuals entering the country unlawfully. Such comparisons have fueled backlash, particularly from those skeptical of both COVID vaccines and government overreach.

Importantly, the court declined to consider current scientific evidence about the effectiveness of the vaccines, stating that debates over efficacy aren’t for the judiciary to resolve. According to the ruling, the determination of whether a vaccine protects public health lies with lawmakers and executive agencies, not with courts or juries. Alleged uncertainty or disagreement about the science behind the shots, the court said, doesn’t negate the legitimacy of policy decisions made under rational basis review.

Judge Mark J. Bennett authored the opinion, which was joined by several other judges on the Ninth Circuit, including Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Judges Wardlaw, Callahan, Bade, Forrest, Mendoza Jr., and Desai. They found that the LAUSD mandate, which was implemented in 2021 and later rescinded in 2023, was justified under the belief that it would help protect both students and staff.

The lawsuit was brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other groups who argued that COVID-19 vaccines function more as medical treatments than traditional vaccines because they don’t fully prevent transmission or infection. Therefore, they said, the mandate could not fall under the protections of the Jacobson ruling. However, the court rejected that argument, holding that what matters is the policy judgment of lawmakers—not the evolving scientific debate or personal objections.

Despite the mandate no longer being in effect, the ruling sets a powerful legal precedent for future cases involving vaccine mandates and public health authority. It underscores how much legal weight Jacobson v. Massachusetts still carries, even over a century later, especially when governments invoke public safety to justify medical mandates.