On the surface, a recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Court could appear to bode poorly for our due process case to end mandates. My interpretation is the opposite. I believe the judges are indicating that a 120-year old case supports a dangerous over-reach of governmental powers.

Given that this decision came after we filed our complaint, the court allowed us to weigh in on the interpretation of that case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, vis à vis our lawsuit, in a five-page brief. This has given me time to evaluate the decision in depth.

A Child’s Due Process Right Not to Be Harmed by the Government

Free Now Foundation’s lawsuit, filed with co-plaintiff Brave & Free Santa Cruz, against California’s mandated shots for schoolchildren asks for a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop the mandated shots while the Court considers a permanent ban on those shots. Our argument is simple, that the shots are known to cause permanent injury and even death in some cases. This fact is not in dispute since the federal government passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986 to provide monetary compensation for the victims of those injuries. To date, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund has paid out more than $5.3 billion for such claims. Thus, we argue, the government does not have the power to require children to get shots that the government knows can injure and even kill them. That violates the child’s Due Process right not to be harmed by the government.

New Ninth Circuit Court Ruling Says Government Can Mandate if it “Believes” Something Would Improve Public Health

While we have been waiting for the U.S. District Court’s ruling on our preliminary injunction motion, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important ruling in a case filed by our friends at Health Freedom Defense Fund. In that case, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) employees challenge a requirement that they get COVID shots. The employees argued that COVID shots don’t prevent the spread of COVID and, therefore, should not be required.

In that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the school district had the power to require those COVID shots under a 120-year-old Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Supreme Court then held that Massachusetts could require smallpox vaccination to prevent the spread of smallpox.

The Ninth Circuit’s recent LAUSD decision was breathtakingly sweeping, holding that, under Jacobson, the government can order just about anyone to get just about any medical treatment (not just vaccinations) if the government merely purports to “believe” that this would improve public health, even without any scientific studies to back up such a purported “belief.” If you don’t go along with this, you can lose your job, your right to attend school, maybe even be locked up (“quarantined”) to, purportedly, prevent you from “spreading,” or even contracting, some disease. If you don’t think that this can happen, just think back to what just happened with the COVID pandemic, because that is exactly what happened, people lost their jobs, their educations, their right to worship, their right to associate with friends, and many other rights. Jacobson is a prescription for totalitarianism in the name of “public health.”

Majority Opinion Likely Written to Show Jacobson’s Overreach

This sounds just like something that the left-leaning Ninth Circuit would come up with, right? A lot of pundits have said so. Well, not exactly. You see, of the eleven judges on the panel that decided this case, six were appointed by Republican presidents, four by President Trump. The sweeping majority decision was written by a Trump appointee.

So, what is going on here? The way that I read this decision is that the majority opinion was written in such sweeping language to show just how overreaching and dangerous Jacobson really is and can be, so as to invite, indeed, beg and plead, for the Supreme Court to scrap it, or at least put some limits on it, before the next “pandemic”.

It seems clear that the LAUSD case, based on whether the government can order shots to prevent transmission of infection, regardless of whether they work or not, is headed to the Supreme Court for just such a review.

We Will Take Our Due Process Case to SCOTUS, if Necessary

If Free Now Foundation’s preliminary injunction motion, which is based on vaccine injury and death, is denied, then we will take our case up to the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court, on the issue of whether the government can mandate shots regardless of any injuries or deaths that they may cause. The two cases are a good match for Supreme Court review – they are actually two sides of the same coin — the LAUSD case is based on effectiveness and ours is based on safety.

Please consider supporting our legal efforts for the good of all children, including your own children and grandchildren.

——————————-

To get the latest on the Due Process case, and get a taste of Dr. Fox’s compelling legal arguments, please read our Oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss and Defendants Supplemental Response:

July 30, 2025 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss,

August 8, 2025 – ECF #59 Supplemental Opposition To Motion To Dismiss 8 22 2025

ECF #60 Defendants Supplemental Response 8-22-2025