Quantcast

Ninth Circuit rules against UC-Irvine professor's COVID-19 vaccine lawsuit

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Ninth Circuit rules against UC-Irvine professor's COVID-19 vaccine lawsuit

Hot Topics
Aaronk

Dr. Kheriaty and family | www.AaronKheriaty.com

The University of California-Irvine School of Medicine professor of psychiatry who sued after being terminated for rejecting the school’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate has lost his federal appeal.

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty argued in his Aug. 18 complaint that not allowing exemptions for natural immunity is unconstitutional. But the panel of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal justices decided that the physician failed to offer an appropriate historical example to establish a fundamental right to be free from a workplace vaccine mandate.

“Because he has not asserted a fundamental right, rational basis review should apply,” the Nov. 23 opinion states. "Under a rational basis review, Kheriaty’s challenge fails.”

The appellate justices further stated that UC-Irvine cited its own studies that support its vaccination policy, which was enough for the policy to survive a rational basis review. 

“It was a very low standard of review, but I would disagree and say it's still not rational,” said attorney Arie Spangler, who recently won a legal challenge against the San Diego Unified School District's COVID-19 vaccine mandate in state court. “We actually cited quite a few studies but our judge didn't make any decisions based on the studies. It was all just based on a pure reading of the statute and a finding that the state legislature has the sole authority to mandate a vaccine for kids."

Kheriaty did not respond to requests for comment but he previously told the Southern California Record that Central District of California Judge James Selna should have applied a strict scrutiny analysis to the case before dismissing it instead of a rational basis review, which doesn’t require narrow tailoring.

“Strict scrutiny is a higher standard and a more difficult bar for a defendant to overcome because they have to prove that they had really good reason to implement a policy and that it was necessary to further their interest where rational basis review allows a defendant to come up with a good reason for implementing their policy, which will usually pass muster with the court,” Spangler told the Southern California Record.

Chief Judge Mary Helen Murguia, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr., and Judge Kenneth Lee made up the federal appellate panel that issued the ruling.

“It seemed like the lower court dismissed all of the expert opinions that were opposed to the vaccine mandate, which is not fair," Spangler said.

Kheriaty also argued that because he survived a COVID-19 infection in July 2020, he is naturally immune to the coronavirus and did not require vaccination.

"The UC system is public but it's governed by regents and it appears the regents have more discretion than a public school district," Spangler added.

More News