In August 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) adopted a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated by October 15, 2021. The policy allowed for medical and religious exemptions but permitted the District to exclude exempt employees from the workplace if health risks could not be sufficiently reduced. The stated purpose of the policy was to provide the safest possible environment for learning and work. The District terminated at least two employees who refused vaccination.
In November 2021, Health Freedom Defense Fund and individual District employees filed suit against the District under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state and local officials for violating their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs alleged that the District’s policy violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive due process and equal protection. They claimed the COVID-19 vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission and therefore amounted to involuntary medical treatment rather than vaccination. They also argued that the policy arbitrarily classified employees based on vaccination status. They asked the court for injunctive relief and any other relief the court deemed proper.
In September 2022, the federal district court granted the District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court relied on Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccine mandate against a constitutional challenge. In Jacobson, the Court held that when the government imposes a vaccine requirement to protect public health, courts must defer to policymakers unless the law is arbitrary or irrational. Based on that precedent, the district court applied rational basis review, the most deferential form of constitutional scrutiny, which requires only that a policy be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. The district court concluded that the District’s policy met that standard because the District could have reasonably believed the vaccine would protect employee and student health. It dismissed both the due process and equal protection claims.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After oral argument before a three-judge panel, the District rescinded its vaccine policy. The Ninth Circuit panel vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that Jacobson applied only to vaccines that prevent disease transmission, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The District then petitioned for rehearing en banc.
The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel’s opinion, and ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgment. Writing for the majority, Judge Bennett held that the case was not moot even though the District had rescinded its vaccine policy. The Ninth Circuit explained that since some plaintiffs remained terminated, and the complaint broadly requested any appropriate relief, the plaintiffs were still effectively seeking reinstatement to their former jobs. Since the district court could still order reinstatement, it could grant effective relief so the case was not moot.
On the merits, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed Jacobson as binding precedent. It held that when the government enacts a vaccine mandate to protect public health and safety, Jacobson requires courts to apply rational basis review. The constitutionality of such a mandate does not depend on whether the vaccine provides immunity or prevents transmission, but whether policymakers could have reasonably concluded that it would protect public health. The Ninth Circuit held that even if the vaccines merely lessened symptoms, the District could reasonably have concluded that a vaccine mandate would protect the health of employees and students. The Ninth Circuit held that the vaccine policy satisfied rational basis review and rejected both the equal protection and substantive due process claims.
Judge Owens dissented, arguing the case was moot because the District had fully rescinded its policy and there was no realistic chance it would be revived. Judge Lee, joined by Judge Collins, dissented in part. He argued that Jacobson should apply only if a vaccine prevents disease transmission and that plaintiffs should have been allowed to present evidence rebutting the government’s assumptions.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of LAUSD.
Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho (9th Cir. July 31, 2025, No. 22-55908) 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19182.