- The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from over 1,000 LAUSD employees fired for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, despite CDC admitting the shots do not prevent transmission.
- The ruling relied on the outdated 1905 Jacobson precedent, which dissenters warned grants unchecked government power under the guise of public health.
- Plaintiffs argued the shots are medical treatments, not vaccines, since they fail to stop infection or transmission.
- Dissenting judges cautioned the decision opens the door to compulsory medical treatments without scientific justification.
- Advocates vow to pursue state-level protections like Idaho's Medical Freedom Act to bypass federal captured courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week quietly closed the door on more than 1,000 Los Angeles school employees who lost their jobs rather than submit to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate that even government officials now acknowledge does not prevent infection or transmission.
The high court declined without comment to hear an appeal challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District's mandate, effectively upholding a July 2025 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision allowed the nation's second-largest school district to require shots for all employees, even after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admitted the vaccines do not stop spread of the virus.
Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children's Health Defense, called the decision surprising.
"It is so incredibly scary what this precedent now is," Kane said. "It's a really bad blow to fired unvaccinated workers and to our liberties in general."
A 1905 precedent lives on
At the heart of the ruling sits Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court decision that allowed states to mandate smallpox vaccines during an emergency. The 9th Circuit majority applied that same reasoning to LAUSD's mandate, concluding the district could reasonably believe the shots protected public health, even if they failed to prevent transmission.
The 9th Circuit's 11-judge en banc panel was not unanimous. Dissenting judges warned the majority's logic grants government extraordinary power.
"The majority's opinion comes perilously close to giving the government carte blanche to require a vaccine or even medical treatment against people's will so long as it asserts — even if incorrectly — that it would promote 'public health and safety,'" the dissent wrote.
Plaintiffs had argued that because COVID-19 shots do not prevent infection or transmission, they are technically medical treatments, not vaccines, and therefore cannot be mandated under Jacobson. The full 9th Circuit panel rejected that distinction.
Scott Street, attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed deep disappointment. "We are especially disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to weigh in. Many judges want to move on from the pandemic. But it is not too late to correct their misinterpretation of Jacobson nor too early to guard against the threats to freedom that will surely come during the next emergency."
The mandate upended careers and lives. LAUSD fired about 500 employees and forced another 500 into retirement or unpaid leave. The district continued enforcing its mandate even as officials elsewhere lifted theirs, and while LAUSD advertised $5,000 bonuses to hire new, non-credentialed teachers.
Fighting continues at state level
Despite the Supreme Court setback, advocates say legal challenges will continue. Street noted his clients know the day will come when the law is corrected.
"It may not be during our lifetimes, but that does not mean we will stop fighting to correct the law."
Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, pointed to Idaho's Medical Freedom Act, which she helped pass last year and prohibits most medical mandates including vaccine requirements. Other states, including Arizona, are considering similar legislation.
"There's a very reasonable, rational argument to be made that the federal government is so beholden to special interests — all aspects of it — that it's not going to be the answer to our efforts," Manookian said.
For the more than 1,000 employees who lost jobs, benefits, and in some cases, their homes, the fight is far from over. The question remains whether the courts will eventually catch up to what many Americans already know: that a shot that does not prevent disease should not justify the destruction of careers, pensions and livelihoods.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.