A ruling issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as ‘traditional’ vaccines.

In a case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court ruled that mRNA COVID-19 shots are a ‘medical treatment’ because they do not prevent transmission or provide immunity.

Health Freedom Defense Fund said the state power granted under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) does not apply to mRNA COVID-19 shots.

“HUGE!!! WE WON our appeal against LAUSD! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s decision, writing that LAUSD’s C0v!d j@b$ mandate interfered with their employees’ ‘fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,'” Health Freedom Defense Fund wrote.

“The state power granted under the Jacobson case does not apply. More to come,” the group added.

The Plaintiffs claimed the LAUSD’s COVID-19 jab mandate interfered with “their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.”

“Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine. ‘Traditional’ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither. At best, Plaintiffs suggest, it mitigates symptoms for someone who has gotten it and then gets COVID-19. But this makes it a medical treatment, not a vaccine,” the court’s opinion, written by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, stated.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint supports these assertions with data and statements from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). For example, Plaintiffs claim that the CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” in September
2021, striking the word ‘immunity.’ Thus, they argue, the CDC conceded that the COVID-19 vaccine is not a
‘traditional vaccine.’ They also cite CDC statements that say the vaccine does not prevent transmission, and that
natural immunity is superior to the vaccine,” the opinion continued.

“The district court largely relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Reilly, 2022 WL 5442479, at *5–6. Plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19
vaccine is a ‘medical treatment’ and not a traditional vaccine. Id. at *5. The district court disagreed, holding that ‘Jacobson does not require that a vaccine have the specific purpose of preventing disease.’ Id. (emphasis in original),” the opinion continued.

“We now turn to the merits. The district court held, applying rational basis review under Jacobson, that the
Policy satisfied a legitimate government purpose. But the district court’s analysis diverges from Jacobson. We thus
vacate the district court’s opinion and remand,” the opinion later stated.

“The district court relied on Jacobson to hold that the Policy was rooted in a legitimate government interest.
Reilly, 2022 WL 5442479, at *5−6. But Jacobson does not directly control based on Plaintiffs’ allegations. In
Jacobson, the Supreme Court balanced an individual’s liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine
against the State’s interest in preventing disease. 197 U.S. at 38. The Court explained that the ‘principle of
vaccination’ is ‘to prevent the spread of smallpox.’ Id. at 31–32. Because of this, the Court concluded that the State’s
interest superseded Jacobson’s liberty interest, and the vaccine requirement was constitutional. Id.

Plaintiffs argue that a ‘traditional vaccine’ must provide immunity and prevent transmission, meaning that it must ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19. Plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread, but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient. And Plaintiffs claim that something that only does the latter, but not the former, is like a medical treatment, not a ‘traditional’ vaccine. This interpretation distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest,” the opinion continued.

“Putting that aside, the district court held that, even if it is true that the vaccine does not ‘prevent the spread,’ Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate challenged here is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test. The district court reasoned that ‘Jacobson does not require that a vaccine have the specific purpose of preventing disease.’ Reilly, 2022 WL 5442479, at *5 (emphasis in original). It acknowledged Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine did not ‘prevent transmission or contraction of COVID-19.’ Id. at *6. But it declared that ‘these features of the vaccine further the purpose of protecting LAUSD students and employees from COVID-19,’ and thus ‘the Policy survives rational basis review.’ Id,” the opinion continued.

“This misapplies Jacobson. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to ‘preventing the spread’ of smallpox. 197 U.S. at 30; see also Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 23 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (‘Although Jacobson pre-dated the modern tiers of scrutiny, this Court essentially applied rational basis review to Henning Jacobson’s challenge . . .’). Jacobson, however, did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.’ Reilly, 2022 WL 5442479, at *5. The district court thus erred in holding that Jacobson extends beyond its public health rationale—government’s power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern ‘forced medical treatment’ for the recipient’s benefit. Id. at *5,” the opinion continued.

“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply,” it added.

“Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Has Ruled That The Covid-19 Shot WAS NOT A VACCINE, ONLY A MEDICAL TREATMENT, THAT EMPLOYERS COULD NOT MANDATE!” John Basham said.

“Wow. The Ninth Circuit decision in LAUSD gets it right. Plaintiffs can argue this is not a vaccine,” Warner Mendenhall commented.


Read the full ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit HERE.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.