by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Popular Rationalism, ©2024
(Jan. 26, 2024) — This post is dedicated to the members of Feds for Freedom.
NOTE: KUDOS TO THOSE WHO TRIED. I HOPE THIS IS READ BY THE RIGHT LAWYERS AT THE RIGHT TIME. IT’S VERY IMPORTANT. READ ON AND SHARE.
The Supreme Court recently addressed three district court rulings on vaccine mandates, which originated from district courts and rose to appellate courts. Here are some points in brief:
– Appeals courts had conflicting decisions on the vaccine mandate, especially concerning federal employees’ ability to challenge mandates in court.
– The Fifth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the administration’s right to impose mandates, but a different appellate court granted the plaintiffs’ motion against the mandates.
– The Biden Administration rescinded vaccine mandates in May 2023, making the appeals moot. Consequently, the Supreme Court, on December 11, 2023, declared the issue moot and asked district courts to dismiss the cases.
– This ruling means that the district courts’ decisions won’t become permanent precedents. If future administrations impose mandates, these cases can’t be used as precedent, and the issues would need to be relitigated.
– The Supreme Court did not hear arguments on the case but directed the district court to vacate its preliminary injunction as moot.
– The decision prevents the Fifth Circuit’s ruling from becoming a restrictive precedent on the president’s capacity to issue federal workforce mandates.
– The Supreme Court set aside lower rulings after deeming the dispute moot, clearing the way for future mandates without the weight of previous decisions.
– The court’s decision provides a clean legal slate for any future vaccine mandates.
While the Supreme Court’s decision is seen by some as a win for the administration and future presidents, removing potentially restrictive precedents, Feds for Medical Freedom has expressed disappointment, emphasizing the importance of bodily autonomy and medical freedom.
– The decision means plaintiffs must start from scratch if a similar requirement is issued in the future.
The Supreme Court’s decision to declare the vaccine mandate cases moot removes existing legal precedents and clears the path for potential future mandates, requiring new litigation if such mandates are implemented again.
What SCOTUS Got Wrong
I have argued and published repeatedly that vaccine mandates effectively mandate subjugation of persons to experimentation. This obviously true because long-term safety and efficacy s done via retrospective studies using systems like VSAFE, the VSD, and VAERS. This particularly so in the context of vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or those requiring further long-term study, can be framed within the context of the ethical guidelines outlined in the Common Rule (45 CFR part 46). This perspective if firmly founded on the principles of informed consent and the protection of human subjects in research. Here’s the winning argument:
Informed Consent and the Common Rule
Informed Consent (45 CFR 46.116): The Common Rule requires that informed consent be obtained from research subjects. This consent must be voluntarily given and based on a full understanding of the research’s nature and risks.
Vaccine mandates, particularly for vaccines that are still being studied post-market or are under EUA, bypass the principle of informed consent, as individuals are compelled to receive the vaccine without the option to decline. This is a crystal-clear violation of 45 CFR 46.116, which stipulates that participation in research should be voluntary.
The Nature of EUA and Ongoing Research
Emergency Use Authorization: Vaccines under EUA are typically authorized for emergency use during public health crises, like a pandemic. These vaccines have been tested for safety and efficacy but are still subject to ongoing research and data collection. Mandating such vaccines results in enrolling individuals into form of ongoing human subjects research without their explicit consent as required under the Common Rule.
Ethical Principles in Research are Also Violated
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (45 CFR 46.111(a)(2)): The requirement to minimize harm and maximize benefits in research can easily be brought into question with mandates. Because long-term effects of a vaccine are not fully understood, mandating its use conflicts with these ethical principles.
Read the rest here.