Grant Wolf, lead attorney for Wise v Inslee reports positive and encouraging news that impacts our Federal Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit.
Last Friday December 4 the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a California school's vaccine mandate was allowed to stand because it did not contain an individualized mechanism for exemptions from the vaccine policy. Wait, how is a decision allowing a vaccine mandate to stand good for us? Please continue reading and find out.
Quote from the key section of the decision followed by Grant's legal analysis:
Moreover, in light of the rigidity of the medical exemption and the limited time period for conditional enrollees to obtain records or vaccine doses—which does not appear to be subject to discretionary extension—there is no “mechanism for ‘individualized exemptions’” in this case.
See Does 1–3 v. Mills, --- S. Ct. ----, 2021 WL 5027177, at *2 (Oct. 29, 2021) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from the denial of an application for injunctive relief) (quoting Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537); Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1878 (concluding that “the inclusion of a formal system of entirely discretionary exceptions” rendered the regulation at issue not generally applicable); We The Patriots USA, Inc., 2021 WL 5121983, at *14–15.
Jay Inslee's Proclamation, "the Washington State Mandate" does have an individual mechanism for exemptions which means the "law" violates the requirement of "general applicability" under Fulton (cited in the paragraph above).
What does this mean? We expect the Court will review Inslee's Mandate under "the strictest of scrutiny" and it is extremely difficult for a law to survive this level of scrutiny. Basically, it means that if the State *could* do something else (which doesn't burden the free exercise of religion), it must take that alternative option. If the law isn’t the “least restrictive” (i.e. least burdensome) option, it will be declared unconstitutional.
In an opinion regarding the Ninth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court recently said (on a COVID case!) "those words are not watered down. We really mean what we say.” In another Supreme Court case involving COVID, the Court expressly said “the Constitution does not shrivel and die during times of crisis or pandemic. It’s protections must be upheld now, as ever.”
Masking, working from home, avoiding contact with high-risk individuals, extensive sanitization, testing, etc... are all options that the State could have taken which don't burden religion to the extent that it is currently being burdened. So, the Court in our case should hold that the State -- instead of forcing the vaccine on religious objectors -- has to adopt one of these alternatives.
Now we pray for the Lord's guidance and that he grant our team strength, courage and wisdom. "Be strong, therefore, and let not your hands be weak and slack, for your work shall be rewarded." Chronicles 2 15:7
Download the 9th Circuit case John Doe v San Diego Unified School District and the Supreme Court Case Fulton v City of Philadelphia at the links provided below