Tag: COVID-19

The Ninth Circuit Rules – Court Sanctioned Authoritarianism

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al., vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is an affront to all who value truth, justice, the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for mandating Covid injections for all employees. We argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. We contended that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case from 1905, did not apply to our case because Jacobson was predicated both on the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification.

Nearly a year later, in September 2022, the district court ruled against the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. In June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit. That petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case.

It bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. This case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such an ignominious reputation.

Indeed, the recent ruling is so egregious that it warrants a thorough breakdown of the main issues:

{1} The Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1995), in which the court held, “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” To be clear, nowhere does our Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people. Moreover, there is not a single case in the 120 years since Jacobson when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that our society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false.  By this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. In actuality, Jacobson did not allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. Instead, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receipt of an injection.

{2} The Ninth Circuit not only claimed that Jacobson is binding but it ignored ample and more recent SCOTUS jurisprudence that holds otherwise. In recent decades, SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v. Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v. Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the immoral and century-old Jacobson.

{3} Perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Bennett wrote, “Jacobson holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” But this contention is false.  Jacobson did hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease. Clearly, absent that ability, there is no public health rationale. Most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health.

{4} In Jacobson, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” (197 U.S. at 30). [Emphasis added.] The Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox. No comparison could be further from the truth. Evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, LAUSD’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

{5} In Jacobson, Justice Harlan wrote, “According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.” Since the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection, they do not “protect the public health and the public safety” and are not “reasonable”—the Ninth Circuit, or any court for that matter, cannot conclude that Covid injections do protect public health and safety when they do not affect either.

{6} In further justifying the court’s ruling, Judge Bennett wrote, “The SAC [Second Amended Complaint of plaintiffs] concedes that COVID-19 vaccines “lessen the severity of symptoms for individuals who receive them.” From this, the LAUSD could have reasonably determined that the vaccines would protect the health of its employees.” Here, the Ninth Circuit slyly and dishonestly shifted from public health and safety to the individual health of school district employees. But since when has it ever been a school district’s job to direct the medical treatment of individual employees? Going forward, will LAUSD also mandate that its employees get regular exercise and eight hours of sleep? Will cholesterol-lowering drugs be forced on teachers? Will their consumption of sugar and of alcohol be monitored and regulated? Where does Big Brother stop?

{7} When a plaintiff files a lawsuit, courts are obligated to accept the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations at the initial stage of proceedings as long as the claims are plausible. In our case, both the three-judge panel and the dissent in the latest ruling acknowledged that we had plausibly pled that Covid injections do not stop infection or transmission. It is our right, according to the rules, to have the opportunity to prove our case in court. However, the Ninth Circuit robbed us of that right. In addition, the Ninth Circuit’s decision has denied us the right of any plaintiff to dispute the issues of fact in front of the court. If the Ninth Circuit can abdicate its duties and thereby violate the basic principles of our judicial system, what is the point in attempting to resolve disputes in the courts? Moreover, how can any American have faith in our judicial system?

{8} When a party disagrees with a ruling from a district court, the party may appeal to the circuit court. If a party disagrees with a ruling from the circuit court, the party may petition the circuit court for an en banc review by a broader panel of judges than the small panel. A review of the en banc process in the Ninth Circuit reports, “To qualify for en banc review, the petition must show that the decision of the three-judge panel conflicts with “a decision of the United States Supreme Court,” “an authoritative decision of another United States court of appeals,” or “a decision of the court to which the petition is addressed” and consideration by the full court is “necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,” or “the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance.” Rule 40(b)(2)(A)-(D).” None of these conditions were met in our case, yet the rehearing was granted. Was this apparent violation of the rules a politically motivated decision?

{9} The Ninth Circuit did not even acknowledge that in September 2021 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had suspiciously timed and conveniently altered its definition of “vaccine” from an injection that prevents disease and produces immunity to the “act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection.” This deceptive move allowed authorities to label Covid injections “vaccines” instead of categorizing them as “gene therapy.” It should be obvious that the public would be reticent to submit to a new gene therapy while it would be more comfortable with a vaccine.

{10} The Ninth Circuit repeatedly noted that Jacobson allows the legislature and executive decision-makers to enforce reasonable laws to protect public health. But there is no mention of school boards in Jacobson! And the California legislature did not enact any legislation regarding Covid injections. Therefore, pretending the 1905 ruling empowers school boards and legislatures is a fallacious claim. This is another instance of how the Ninth used deceptive sleight-of-hand in reaching its decision.

There are many more issues with the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling. But for brevity’s sake, I will make only a few more comments.

It is remarkable that no Ninth Circuit judge took the time to write a concurrence-especially in light of the tenor of oral argument before the en banc panel in March of 2025. During oral argument, the questions posed by the majority of the judges suggested they favored the arguments of plaintiffs and we left the court feeling very optimistic while counsel for the defendants looked downcast. Yet none of those judges championing the principles during the hearing took the time to write a concurrence in support of the majority opinion. I can only wonder why not.

The biggest takeaway from the ruling is this: If the state can mandate a medical product under a real or a fake public health scare, can it mandate any medical intervention it chooses? What are the limits of the state’s power? Can it mandate psych meds to improve public morale? How about Adderall to enhance public productivity? Or regulate sugar to improve immunity? And why not forced pregnancy to ensure a stable population base? Of course, all of these dictates would be for the greater good!

Judge Bennett wrote, “We reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit Jacobson to only those vaccines that prevent the spread of a disease and provide immunity.”

By the court’s logic, there is no limit to the power of the state—a conclusion that should terrify us all. Equally concerning: The Ninth Circuit has abdicated its power and authority to hold public servants accountable. When the courts cannot be relied upon to hold public servants accountable, who can? And where does that leave us?

As Judge Lee wrote in the fitting conclusion to his powerful dissent, “As a practical matter, I fear we are giving the government a blank check to foist health treatment mandates on the people—despite its checkered track record—when we should be imposing a check against the government’s incursion into our liberties.

Testimony of Leslie Manookian on the Idaho Medical Freedom Act – Senate State Affairs Committee

Posted on by Leslie Manookian

February 5, 2025

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:

My name is Leslie Manookian. Although I am the founder of a nationally recognized nonprofit, I am here in my personal capacity as a long-time resident of Idaho. My family moved here in 1976 when I was twelve and I’ve called Idaho home ever since. Growing up, I could have never imagined that Idaho would become a place that locked its people down, forced citizens to cover their faces, stand on floor markers 6 feet apart, or produce proof of vaccination in order to enter a venue or business, but that is exactly what happened. Idahoans lost their jobs, suffered isolation and mental health issues, were denied participation in normal society, and dozens even died – all on the basis of empty promises, if not outright dishonesty. These are the reasons I am here today, because I want Idaho to lead the nation in ensuring that such intrusive and authoritarian infringements never happen again and in recognizing that no right is more fundamental than the right to choose what medical interventions we accept.

This right, medical freedom, is foundational to our nation, our Constitution, and our shared human dignity. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act, sponsored by Senator Dan Foreman, would restore this ethical principle in Idaho and ensure that Idaho stands as a beacon of liberty in declaring that no individual will be coerced into receiving a medical intervention against their will, with the exception of those organizations which receive CMS funds. It ensures that employment, education, entertainment, and public participation remain accessible to all, regardless of their medical choices.

The right to bodily autonomy is enshrined in the very fabric of the American legal system. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the American ideal that individuals have the right to make deeply personal medical decisions without interference or coercion.

The Constitutional Foundation of Medical Freedom

The principle of bodily autonomy is so deeply embedded in American jurisprudence that even forced medical procedures in the name of law enforcement have been struck down as unconstitutional. In Rochin v. California (1952), the Court ruled that forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach to retrieve evidence was a violation of bodily integrity.

In Griswold vs. Connecticut(1965), the Supreme Court ruled that every American enjoys a zone of privacy around them into which the state may not intrude.

In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health(1990), the Court held that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.” This ruling reaffirmed that the right to refuse medical intervention is not a privilege—it is a fundamental right.  

In Washington vs. Harper 1990, the Court ruled that even prisoners have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical interventions unless they pose a threat to themselves or others due to their mental state.

Finally, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), the Court reaffirmed the fundamental nature of deeply personal medical decisions, recognizing that autonomy over one’s body is an essential aspect of liberty.

The right to make one’s own medical decisions is not granted by the government. It is not a privilege subject to approval. It is a sacred, God-given, inalienable right, woven into the very fabric of our constitutional republic. And it is a right that has been consistently upheld by our Supreme Court. This bill is in no way radical, it is merely a codification of our basic human rights.

This right is as fundamental to a free and just society as are our cherished rights to freedom of expression, religion and assembly. I would argue it is the most basic human right because absent the right to control what medical interventions we allow into and onto our bodies, what meaningful rights do we truly have? I care not about my speech if my body and the direction of my health do not belong to me.

Furthermore, if the government may not force a person to undergo a medical procedure for the sake of another, how then can we justify forcing individuals to accept medical interventions to participate in society?

The Dangers of Medical Coercion

When we allow medical coercion—whether by the government, employers, or businesses—we set a dangerous precedent and history has shown us that whenever bodily autonomy is sacrificed for the greater good, injustice follows. Just consider, for a moment, how those engaged in worship outdoors in northern Idaho during Covid were arrested. Or how the family whose newborn baby was kidnapped by hospital staff and CPS when the parents declined a hepatitis B shot in the first few days after birth, although hepatitis B is a disease for which only IV drug users and the sexually promiscuous are at risk.

Consider the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough” – all for the greater good of society, of course. That decision, later recognized as a moral stain on our society, serves as a grim reminder of what happens when government is given power over personal medical decisions.

It is a slippery slope when we allow even well-intentioned policies to infringe upon individual rights. The Idaho Medical Freedom Act ensures that such infringements will not happen in our great state. It ensures that no business, school, or government entity may force an individual to choose between a medical intervention and their livelihood, education, or access to public life.

What This Bill Protects

Under this act, no individual may be:

  • Denied employment or forced to undergo a medical intervention as a condition of employment, except in very limited circumstances involving federally funded entities.
  • Excluded from schools or universities for their personal and private medical decisions.
  • Refused entry into public buildings or services due to their medical choices.
  • Discriminated against based on their medical choices.

Addressing the Public Health Argument

Some may argue that public health concerns justify medical mandates. But our freedom is not conditional. Our Constitution does not grant rights that are subject to the whims of fear or political pressure. It guarantees them outright. The Covid era serves as a stark reminder of what happens when we sacrifice our principles due to fear, pressure, or money.

Public health should be restricted to public concerns such as controlling waste in our public spaces or effluent from businesses. The intrusion of public health into our intimate private health matters must never be tolerated again and was never envisioned when public health laws were originally enacted.

Nowhere in state or federal law do we find the power or authority to dictate personal medical choices, but during recent years, the scope of public health has been increasingly and alarmingly construed to include private health. This must be stopped.

The Role of Informed Consent

At the heart of medical freedom, is the ethical principle of informed consent—a pillar of modern medical ethics. It has been universally acknowledged that every individual has the right to evaluate the risks and benefits prior to any medical intervention and to make a voluntary decision which means free of any type of coercion.

The Nuremberg Code, established after the horrors of forced medical experimentation under the Nazis wisely and resolutely determined that voluntary consent is “absolutely essential” in medical decision-making. This principle is echoed in international law and treaties such as the Declaration of Helsinki, the US Belmont Report, and UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in more recent decades.

When a person is forced to undergo a medical intervention under threat of losing their job, education, or public services, that is not consent—it is coercion and it does not belong in a free or just society.

My dear family friend, Doug Cameron, is here today. Doug was a vital and fit man until he was catastrophically injured and paralyzed by the Covid shot which his employer pushed on him due to his employer’s fear. That employer fired Doug after Doug was disabled by the shot as he was no longer able to do his job as well. Doug’s employer has since passed away but Doug will have to live the rest of his life in a wheelchair for a medical intervention he categorically did not want.

This must never be allowed to happen again.

Time to Codify Medical Freedom

I urge you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee to vote yes on S-1023. Medical freedom should not be a partisan issue. This is not about whether you personally choose to accept or decline a medical intervention. This is about the fundamental right of every individual to make that decision for themselves. Idaho already banned Covid shot mandates in the Coronavirus stop act, why should we treat any other medical intervention any different?

If we fail to defend this principle now, what comes next? Will someone decide we need to be chipped to participate in society? Will an employer require us to alter our DNA to enhance our productivity? Will we be barred from society if we don’t take some pill or injection? If we accept the idea that bodily autonomy can be sacrificed for the “greater good,” where do we draw the line?

I ask you to consider: Do we want to live in a society where other people, entities, or organizations have the power to dictate what medical interventions we receive or do we want to live in a society where individual choice is not just respected but held sacred, and where medical freedom is upheld as an inviolable human right?

I believe in the latter. I believe in freedom. And I believe that this bill is necessary to protect that freedom.

I urge you all to support the Idaho Medical Freedom Act—because Idaho rejects coercion. Because we recognize that no one—no employer, no business, no government—has the right to override the personal medical decisions of an individual or to condition our lives on them. Because no one else knows our medical background or health needs. And because no one else has to live with the consequences of our medical choices.

Let us stand for liberty. Let us stand for bodily autonomy. And let us ensure that Idaho remains a state where medical freedom is not negotiable—because in a free society, it is not a privilege, it is a human right. S-1023 will enshrine this most sacred and basic human right in law.