Monday, July 15, 2024


“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

— William Wilberforce


Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to COVID-19 Shot Mandates

front of Supreme Court building

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected appeals to two COVID shot mandate-related cases brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD). In one case, CHD appealed a lower court ruling that the non-profit group lacked standing to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its authorization of the COVID-19 shots for young children. In the other case, CHD challenged the COVID shot mandate for students at Rutgers University in New Jersey.1

The Supreme Court did not issue an explanatory statement along with their denial of these appeals.2 By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the opinions of the lower court to stand.3

Appellate Court Dismissed CHD’s Claims Against the FDA

CHD, together with five sets of parents, sued the FDA over its emergency use authorization COVID shots for minors. The District Court dismissed the case finding that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and the 5th Circuit Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. Plaintiffs alleged that when the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to distribute the experimental biologicals, it did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) reasoned decision-making requirements. Plaintiffs sought an injunction forbidding the marketing or promotion of the shots.4

A Plaintiff will have standing to sue when it has been demonstrated that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is, “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;” the defendant caused the injury; and the injury would likely be redressed by the court.5 The injury must also be concrete, which has been defined as “whether the alleged injury to the Plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”6

The Appellate Court agreed with the District Court that the Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of showing that their injury was concrete, particularized or imminent, rather than merely speculative.

The Appellate Court wrote:

To begin, it is insufficient that Plaintiff allege that some hypothetical third party might, at some hypothetical point in the future and through some hypothetical means, will vaccinate their children against their wishes.7

The Appellate Court added that CHD also lacked standing because the organization has not “diverted significant resources to counteract” the EUA granted to the COVID shots by the FDA. The Appellate Court ruling went on to state that the Plaintiff also has not shown that the FDA’s authorization, “concretely and ‘perceptibly impaired’” its ability to fulfill their mission. The courts dismissed the action due to lack of standing.8

Appellate Court Dismissed Challenge to Rutgers COVID Shot Policy

CHD and 13 Rutgers University students sued the public university over its COVID vaccine policy, which required all students attending in-person classes to get the controversial shots. Twelve of the 13 Plaintiff students asked for and were granted religious or medical exemptions. The Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s opinion that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief.9

The 3rd Circuit Appellate Court found that all of the students and CHD had standing to sue Rutgers University and therefore addressed the merits of the case.10

The Appellate Court agreed with the lower court that Rutgers COVID vaccine policy did not conflict with the federal EUA law, which provides that when presented with an experimental product, one has to be given the option to accept or refuse the product because Rutgers students were given three options: (1) take the shots; (2) refuse the shots and apply for an exemption or (3) continue their education on line or at another university.11

The Appellate Court pointed out:

That choice may have been difficult. But there is no unqualified right to decide whether to “accept or refuse” and EUA product without consequence… Nor is there an unqualified right to attend a university, let alone the university of one’s choice, without conditions.12

The Appellate Court Relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) Ruling to Uphold COVID Shot Requirement

The Appellate Court also found that although Rutgers University, a state school, is not considered a state actor for eleventh amendment purposes, it is deemed a government instrumentality when it comes to federal and constitutional civil rights laws. Plaintiffs argued that the university does not have the right to require the COVID-19 shots as a condition of attendance or to keep unvaccinated students out of school housing. The Court disagreed. It found that New Jersey statutes and codes granted Rutgers University the right to impose restrictions on students including vaccine requirements, and that the Supreme Court in the seminal ruling in  Jacobson v Massachusetts in 1905 affirmed the constitutional authority of states to mandate smallpox vaccine to protect the community from disease and gave historical precedence to requiring vaccination for in-person school attendance.13

In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Henning Jacobson, a Swedish immigrant and Lutheran minister, took issue with a Massachusetts Board of Heath law that demanded individuals get a second smallpox vaccination or be subject to a $5 fine. Jacobson and his son had both suffered reactions to previous smallpox vaccinations. Jacobson took the case all the way to the Supreme Court alleging that the smallpox vaccination requirement violated his 14th Amendment right to liberty and equal protection under the law and arguing that he and his son were genetically predisposed to negative vaccine reactions as evidenced by their serious reactions to previous smallpox shots.

The 1905 Supreme Court majority found that during smallpox epidemics, state legislatures have the constitutional authority to impose mandatory vaccination laws to “secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state”.14

Court Finds COVID-19 Shot Requirement Did Not Violate Student’s 14Th Amendment Rights

Plaintiff students made the argument that Rutgers’ COVID vaccine policy violated their substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Finding that there was no fundamental right to refuse vaccination, due to settled law based on the Jacobson decision, the Court used the rational basis test to determine whether Rutgers’ COVID vaccine mandate violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.15

In order to decide whether a law violates the 14th Amendment, courts will utilize one of three judicial review tests: (1) strict scrutiny; (2) intermediate scrutiny and (3) rational basis test. Of al three tests, the easiest hurdle to overcome is the rational basis standard because it simply requires that there be a rational connection between the law and the law’s means and goals.16

The Supreme Court relied on Jacobson and distinguished more recent cases the Plaintiffs relied on, such as Cruzen v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, which found that a competent person had a right to refuse medical treatment because it determined that the COVID shots did not fall under the category of personal health decisions and instead was a matter of “public health safety.”17

The Supreme Court’s Increasing Reliance on Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Explaining why the decision in Jacobson remains paramount, while dismissing vaccines as, “a minor intrusion,” the Appellate Court pointed out that the Supreme Court has come to rely heavily on Jacobson in recent years…18

The Court’s more recent pronouncements confirm Jacobson’s vitality. Just last term, the Supreme Court declined to recognize a substantive due process right against substantial and lengthy intrusions on a person’s right to control her body where even one “life or potential life” is at risk. See Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2277 (citation omitted). Surely, then, it would not now recognize a fundamental right to avoid the “relatively modest” intrusion of a vaccine, Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn, 141 S. Ct. at 71 (Gorsuch, J., concurring), where innumerable lives are at risk. To the contrary, in the last three years alone, the Supreme Court has cited Jacobson five times, and the federal appellate courts, for their part, have uniformly relied on Jacobson in dismissing challenges to vaccination requirements.19

Court Finds Individuals with Natural Immunity Are Not Similar to the Vaccinated

Plaintiffs argue that they were denied equal protection under the law because the students were required to take the novel shot prior to faculty and staff having the same requirement. The Court disagreed, finding that the faculty and staff were not similarly situated as the students because New Jersey law only requires students and not faculty to take ACIP recommended vaccines.20

Using the rational basis standard, the Appellate Court easily found that Rutgers had a rational explanation and a compelling interest for their COVID vaccine mandate and dismissed the Plaintiff’s equal protection argument.21

The Appellate Court also took issue with the Plaintiff’s position that students who had previously recovered from COVID and were naturally immune to the virus were similarly situated as vaccinated students and therefore must be treated similarly. Citing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation that those naturally immune from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to get COVID again, the Appellate Court sided with Rutgers University policy, stating that since the policy was not arbitrary or irrational, it was constitutional.22

The Appellate Court concluded:

And again, even if Rutgers’ Policy was “to some extent both underinclusive”—by (initially) excluding certain staff members—“and overinclusive”—by including students with ‘natural immunity’—“perfection is by no means required” under rational basis review. Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 108 (1979) (citation omitted).

By refusing to hear these cases challenging the COVID vaccine mandates, the Supreme Court has sent the message that they do not have an issue with these rulings at this time and the Appellate Court rulings upholding Jacobson v Massachusetts stand.23

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

21 Responses

  1. What does anyone expect from the supremes? This is their typical, bogus wordsmithing nonsense. Anything can be made “legal”; anything at all. All lawyers accept the title of “esquire” and swear allegiance to the “bar” whose allegiance is to the so-called “British” Crown. Look into the Pilgrim Society and SERCO. And before that look into Haym Salomon with regard to the U.S.’s “independence”.

  2. Article quote: Citing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation that those naturally immune from a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to get COVID again, the Appellate Court sided with Rutgers University policy, stating that since the policy was not arbitrary or irrational, it was constitutional.

    Ruling based on outright lies and deception from a captured agency whom has utterly failed in their duties and proved their complete incompetency regarding these matters. CDC; Policy for sale. SCOTUS; Complicit in undermining citizens rights based on lies the health agency continues to cling to. Don’t believe your lying eyes when you see the millions of people whom died and were harmed. Just because those people wear fancy robes and sit in lofty positions of power does not mean they are immune to propaganda. Obviously they failed to understand the truth of the issues.

    Millions of people died. Of course everyone involved covered it all up and used the instruments of government to shield themselves from liability. We’re still boycotting many of the companies that tried to push vaccine mandates to this day. Half of the people involved with ‘health agencies’ and associated corporations involved with covid belong in federal prison.

    Biological weapons research and the associated for profit vaccination program is nothing short of a fire station behaving like arsonists and setting fires, so they can bill more and enrich themselves from putting out the fires. We concur that there should be a general prohibition on for profit vaccines for any and all issues pertaining to public health. They should prohibit all patenting and proprietary associations for anything this supposedly important. They’re making deadly pathogens then either by purpose or accident, they’re released, and then these corporations profit from forcing the sale of vaccines and other proprietary patented technologies. We would have never had covid 19 or any of these other amped up pathogens in the first place, if the misappropriated tax dollars had not gone to funding their research and development. NIH CDC and everyone they service are beyond corrupt. Do not trust. Taxation without representation is now the standard operating procedure.

    1. The patent laws are the problem here. If they could not patent drugs, vaccines, natural substances, there would be no mandates.

  3. They are ALL demons. They won’t be experimented on but will allows the USA citizens to be. it’s ALL evil.

  4. Only through the power of Almighty Gog Yahweh, with people totally committed to loving him with all their hearts, minds, souls, and strength, along with OBEYING him- will we defeat this evil at every level in our government, corporations, education systems, churches, fake news, media, “entertainment”, and all the rest. COMPLETE EVIL- just like Mercola and his worship of “kali”.

    Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Kali:

  5. 1905 ruling is predicated on the false notion that vaccines work and prevent dis-ease. If that were true we should all be in favor of them. Create a fake disease and then provide a vaccine has been one of many psyops of the 20th century. The “Supreme” Court is committed to precedent (like the 1905 ruling), jurisdiction, and deference to those truly calling the shots, pardon the pun, rather than allegiance to the Constitution, of which we are no longer under its protections and inalienable rights. Learning real history is imperative to fully understand ubiquitous corruption is thorough now. Dr. Ben Carson, a potential VP candidate, has said forced vaccination is a good thing; he is a very good man, indeed, but terribly misinformed. Stay the course and speak truth!

  6. This is BS because the covid shot was Not a vaccine it neither prevented infection or transmission ! The supreme court has become a joke !

  7. It’s a running battle between tyranny and freedom. The “my body, my choice” crowd loves it when anti-bioweapon injection cases lose.

  8. Yes, the court took the traditional meaning of vaccine and applied it to these Covid shots. Were they confused by the CDC and Pharma co-opting the term vaccine? The claim by CDC that the shots worked and that recovered patients had a higher chance of getting Covid again is nonsensical. Maybe the court should review the results rather than the propaganda

  9. I believe my husband and I got COVID in October 2019. Then again in December 2022 when we visited a couple of relatives who both got 2 vaccines each. The man claimed he had a cold when we got there and my husband and I got sick 2 days later when we got home. They called a day after that to tell us the wife had covid. I believe the husband had it and not a cold. They had gotten the free tests. I refuse them because I will not stick them up my nose. Our symptoms were not in the lease severe and we are seniors.

  10. Each of us has unique DNA. No matter how many billions of humans, and perhaps even animals and other forms of life that
    pass through this planet, not one has the same DNA. We each have a unique DNA footprint. There is no repetition of our unique DNA in another human. This is established through science. Has anyone else got your fingerprints? Your blood, skin or bone DNA. No.

    This uniqueness indicates an indelibly given, non human creation of DNA. It is a Creation that is beyond human ability. Perhaps it symbolizes human limitations as co-creators and perhaps a message in relation to our Infinite worth that includes a Soul journey.

    This is a difficult journey requiring much bravery. A journey that includes a birthing which is followed by programming into human Consciousness. A consciousness which comes through cultures that are filled with personal and group mythologies that are handed down through generations.

    These generational mythologies collectively grow into a collective human subconscious which dictates earthly conduct. The collective reflects a frequency or vibration. As we look at human conduct we see it enters periods of more ‘darkness’ which does harm, or more Light which does least or no harm.

    Throughout human history we have received messages from evolved Spiritual Masters who come to teach similar principles. They have presented to us what they call Universal Laws and Principles to live by during our limited time on this planet. They have encouraged us, although we have choice, to Accept with deep gratitude the mastery that exists in Creation. A Creation that includes some evolution that governs Nature to sustain our physical bodies and all Life. They have taught that this sustainability is best served when we make sustainable interdependent choices and live by codes that do no harm. They have taught ghst Universal Cause and Effect Laws revolve around natural consequences with regard to our choices. These are real laws and are experienced immediately or have a deferred effect. These laws are Universal and are not up for permanent alteration. Humans do not govern the Universe and cannot change Universal Laws and super physics. Cannot change Truth.

    It is known in the Universe that we will be programmed into mythologies and make mistakes while we are here. Universal Guidance has indicated that we are to grow in awareness and own our mistakes and do as much repair of them as possible with regard to any harmful consequences. Sometimes reversal of consequences is possible. Sometimes it is not. It is important to do the repair we can do and learn from mistakes and not repeat them.

    We have been guided to understand we need to consciously evolve our Soul toward increased ability to live Universal Laws and Principles to do no harm. To overcome erroneous human consciousness Our Soul’s strength will determine how we manage to do this in a field of Consciousness that is contaminated with human mythologies. It will be determined by the depth of the programming we have been under since birth. Every culture is contaminated.

    Although we have from time to time been sent Universal Spiritual Masters who are not subject to human individual and group mythologies to help us align with Truth to do no harm, they honor we are still left with choice.

    Those who come have shared Laws that consistently indicate our need to take care of Creation; to be grateful and have Respect for all Creation and our interdependence and reliance upon Creation for our physical sustainability while we are here. Our physicality sustains the length of our Soul’s journey. The laws point clearly toward not harming and interfering with the freedom of an individual to sustain their Soul’s journey. The body is the temple (house) of the Soul. Harm yours or others, not!

    To take the necessary care of the body requires wisdom as well as the need to love and respect ourselves and to support and respect another. Under Universal Law there is no Freedom without Respect. Respect anchors us to Peace, Love and Freedom.

    There is no quality of Life without a conscious understanding of Cause and Effect Laws and Principles. Without a conscious awareness of the impact our choices have on ourselves and others increases the risk of harm. To do no or least harm, our choices need to be made within the framework of Universal Laws and not be limited to the definitions of human laws that wax and wane and are often left to the interpretation by the wicked or unwise. Mankind is known to be consciously and subconsciously fickle. We know most who seek power seek self gain no matter what.
    Imposing a ‘one size fits all’ use of genetically modifying injections (which is a scientific fact re Covid19 injections and perhaps some others) into our biology makes no sense. We absolutely do not know how our unique DNA will respond to it. When ‘one size fits all’ injections are imposed through mandates that confront an individual’s unique DNA it puts us in a situation to take a risk with our unique bodily safety and integrity.

    When fickle companies or governments produce injections that are harmful and have a purpose for harm, profit and control, we are at risk as a species. When they shore up their own immunity against any liability regarding harm to others, we have an obvious message that injustice is in play. It points to an an intention to create harm. And intention is everything!

    Such abuse leaves humans with a right to voice their choice regarding their own risk management. Who would want, in their right mind, take into their body some foreign substance that is potentially lethal and not a good fit for their body. A substance which is potentially harmful. One that is unproven in terms of safety and efficacy. Especially something that will alter our unique DNA forever and have harmful and possible irreversible effects.

    As a result of the known risks and harm relating to mRNA technology and the other genomic altering substances involved in Covid19 injections, we have a right to ask questions and confront their productivity and enforced use. We have the right of refusal.

    We have a right and need to ask not only questions but hold accountable any government, pharmaceutical companies or product producers about their creations and any benefits and risks. Especially in regard to any intentions to produce experimental genetic altering chemicals they desire to force upon the collective human populations. We have a right to confront their claim for legal immunity from risks of any harmful products to alter our unique DNA.

    The accepted ethical standards of Scientific practice requires those who are creating chemical or other substances to substantiate the risks and benefits of any product. To give Informed Consent to any who wish to use the product. Informed Consent is a Human Right. Informed Consent was not done with this genetically modifying substance labeled as a Covid19 injection. This one size fits all injection is still experimental and unlicensed. It is still wrongfully labeled as a vaccine. It was used without any legitimate and standard scientific investigation. Who does that?

    We all face the consequences of Cause and Effect Laws on this journey. If the Universal Laws decree peace, love, harmony and loving support of one another and care of this planet, I encourage each of us to fulfill the Law. If we are here for the growth of our Infinite Soul and our Soul growth Universally is measured by our increased ability to live these laws while endowed with a human body, it makes sense to get on with that task. Why shrink to the limiting barometer of human laws? Of human individual or group mythologies?

    We may not be able to break through others individual and group mythologies that create and perpetuate the human addiction to chaos, drama, pain and suffering. However, we can make the choice to be mindful about our own choices and on fulfilling the law to do no or least harm.

    Conquering cultures and tribes that are influenced by erroneous individual and group mythologies, whether functioning within low or high tech cultures, and who do not focus on Universal Laws and Principles, have always been here on earth. They will continue to be here long after our Infinite Soul departs this dimension. When we fulfill the Law to Love and Respect and serve and support one another, to create Peace and Harmony, our Consciousness evolvement here will be complete. We will have demonstrated what Master Teachers came to teach us. We will have fulfilled the Universal Laws and Principles to our full potential in human form. We will have overcome the fickleness and lies of this experimental human limitation.

    The same teachers taught us not to judge others regarding self or other
    harm. They made it clear we do have the right to challenge individuals or groups who believe in and act out harmful conduct which is influenced by harmful individual and group mythologies. We can hold them accountable before our earth laws. We are to apply that justice in a way that demonstrates justice with love. It cannot be devoid of compassion and respect.

    Universal Laws will always trump unethical and limiting laws made by man. Will always trump the deceivers who wish to manipulate and escape accountability for doing harm while here. Master’s guidance includes explicit statements about unrepentant karma and Cause and Effect principles. The Law of Love and Respect is to be lived Universally for Universal Freedom to exist. The earth consciousness vibration is created with the purpose of freedom of choice for all. It has been created with the purpose of growth for our Soul to align with Universal Laws. Cause and Effect consequences will show us if we are on or off course.

    Earth time is brief and a humbling experience as well as a time for great opportunities for Soul Growth, compassion and even joy. It is a unique journey and as unique as our DNA reminds us. When others want to alter our unique DNA with genetically synthetic altering substances and authorities support them, it is time to be mindful that their choices are off course and under the influence of harmful individual and group mythologies. They are not aligned to Cause and Effect Universal Laws to do no harm.

    We came to do this Soul Growth. It is our earth Life’s Purpose. Let us individually break through the veil placed upon our Consciousness and evolve to our true potential in human form. Let’s mirror Universal Love, Peace and Harmony and Wisdom. We are not alone. ‘ Knock and the door shall be opened for you.’ Our unique pathway will be made known to each of us when we ask for guidance to do no harm. We can do this.

  11. The Supreme Court relied on Jacobson and distinguished more recent cases the Plaintiffs relied on, such as Cruzen v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, which found that a competent person had a right to refuse medical treatment because it determined that the COVID shots did not fall under the category of personal health decisions and instead was a matter of “public health safety.”17

    BAD decisions. BAD precedents. The court needs to revisit these issues from scratch. Too much new evidence. Someone should not have to wait to suffer harm to have standing to sue against a bad law.

  12. If I recall correctly, the Court left some information out of their argument regarding the Jacobson case. Apparently, Jacobson was offered the option of paying a small fine ($5) to to opt out of the vaccine. Also, as someone noted, the the “vaccine” does not protect public health. It injures the public. Someone needs to make this clear to Court.

  13. Note : the shot was not a vaccine but MRNA – because the virus was gain of function . We are not discussing a vaccine at all . Manipulating one’s DNA / RNA through messenger RNA is a different conversation all together . That should have been one point. Forcing something on a people – world wide – should concern us world over . We the people have an obligation to stand up and pursue our constitutional rights . This argument and fight are far from over . It is just one of the many issues . Godspeed

  14. Don’t waist your time or $ on any school that encourages vaccine avoid business that require vaccine.
    People without vaccines are healthier.

  15. No government criminal agency will save us from their tyranny.
    We are on our own and we must say NO to any more of their tyranny.
    If all the Rutgers students had said NO the ‘rules’ would have suddenly changed.

  16. Does anyone remember that the 1905 ruling was NOT that he had to take the vaccine, but rather that he had to pay a small fee instead? He could refuse the vaccine and pay the fee, which he thought was unconstitutional as it took his right of choice. I did of course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search in Archive