A coalition of hundreds of doctors filed a federal lawsuit challenging the University of California (UC)’s statewide policy mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for all UC students under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but a legal expert who weighed in isn’t confident the America’s Frontline Doctor (AFLDS)'s group will be successful.
“Plaintiffs are students enrolled with UC, which recently mandated COVID-19 vaccination upon them even though Plaintiffs have already recovered swiftly from COVID-19 with natural immunity, and upon all other students attending UC this Autumn,” wrote plaintiff's attorney Christina Gilbertson in the complaint. “Plaintiffs continue to have robust natural immunity superior to the vaccine-induced immunological response now mandated by State Defendants.”
AFLDS sued UC in the Central District of California asking the judge to issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction that would stop UC from using a one-size-fits-all vaccine mandate.
“The standard that courts review under is what's called a rational basis test and that puts courts in the position of having to decide whether there is a rational reason for this vaccine requirement," said Harry Nelson, founder, and managing partner of Nelson Hardiman, a Los Angeles-based healthcare law firm. "What we've seen is that courts are basically saying there is a public health crisis, which is a rational basis for restricting people who are unvaccinated from being allowed to attend class in person."
Nelson added that neither the unvaccinated nor students who have recovered from the coronavirus are a protected class under current anti-discrimination laws.
“These arguments are essentially duplicative and copycat arguments that have already been rejected in other courts around the country and that are not well-rounded,” Nelson told the Southern California Record. “This is really a political fight rather than a legal fight. That's where all this is heading. We are either going to see enough of a critical mass of people saying no to vaccines to make a difference, or the vaccines are going to just keep rolling ahead.”
The lawsuit asserts that UC policy violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code Section 51 et seq., which provides students with protection from discrimination based on a medical condition or genetic information and are entitled to full and equal accommodations.
"Schools are looking at what other schools are doing and trying to figure out if there is a testing regime that's sufficient, or whether this kind of harder line approach of online classes only is going to be sufficient," Nelson said. "It seems to me that schools have been one of the most aggressive in taking a more limited view than certainly the government, employers, or public accommodations."
If a federal appeals court decision earlier this week is any indication, AFLDS faces an uphill battle.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty’s decision that rejected Indiana University students’ argument that college immunization mandates are unwanted medical treatments that violate their constitutional rights and decided instead that it is reasonable to require them to be vaccinated, according to media reports.
“In situations like this where there is a national issue arising, I think judges are paying attention to what other judges are ruling even though technically every judge is supposed to review each case independently,” Nelson added. “I will be surprised if we see a federal district court judge go in the opposite direction.”