b'P ointMy Advice down, which would not be a substantive rejection.to UC Students ImgoingwiththatbecauseIdont think there will be four judges who want (and their Parents)to deal with this kind of case in the middle of what I think all nine justices think is a very dangerous public health crisis (and I and UC Employeesknow most of you dont agree with that as-sessment). Therefore, the best move for theSupremes is to punt and let the case come about the COVID-19upthroughnormalchannelsandtime frames (like a couple of years from now) in large part so the state public health officials Mandate and governments can deal with the crises.I think that is a simple and easy call be-cause lets face it, theyre not lining people I amrepeatedlyBY RICHARD JAFFE, ESQ. law allows State andup and injecting them yet. If and when they start doing that, I think the Supremes will askedbyparentsLike it or not (and I know you all hateweigh in quickly, and that is a case I would andUniversityofCalifornia(UC) it), Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) is the lawbe extremely interested in, in part because students what they should do aboutof the land, and theI think the Supremes would be happy to theUCCOVID-19vaccinemandatelocalgovernmentstoimposewhattheyoverturn the actual precedent that allowed and about the legal challenges. Ditto by/ think (and the courts will agree) are rea- the government to do that (and that would from UC employees. sonable rules including vaccine mandatesbe Buck v. Bell, and O.W. Holmes infamous I am actually aware of only one filed(asopposedtoactualforcedvaccinationjingle that three generations of idiots are legalchallengeandthatistheFederalwhich is a completely different issue). enough, which he said to justify forced lawsuit recently filed in the U.S. DistrictAll trial courts and appellate courts aresterilization).LikeIsaid,forthatcase, Court,CentralDistrict,EasternDivisionrequired to follow Jacobson until the U.S.count me in, and I can assure you all that is (Riverside,California)bytheFrontier Supreme Court says otherwise. And yes,a case where the courts (and even the lower doctor group. That lawsuit does not coverthe Jacobson constitutional test (reasonablecourts) will apply strict scrutiny.all UC students, but only those who haverelationship) is outdated and now we haveKeepinmind,though,thattheSev-had COVID-19, under the theory that if youthethreelevelsofscrutiny.However,Ienth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed have had the infectious disease (and pre- think the district judge in the Indiana Uni- thedenialofIndianaUniversitysinjunc-sumably you still have the antibodies), youversity (IU) case got it right when he heldtion request based upon Jacobson, as did a dont need the vaccine. that IUs policy is governed by the lowestFederaljudgeintheRiversideCalifor-Ikeephearingaboutagenerallaw- levelofscrutiny(rationalrelationship,nia district court on July 30th, also citing suitchallengingthegeneralmandateonwhich is barely a test/requirement). I knowJacobson.ThreeCaliforniastateappel-behalf of UC students; but I havent seenthe plaintiffs in these cases are arguing forlate courts did the same thing, as did one the papers, nor can I confirm that it hasstrict scrutiny, but I dont think that will flyotherFederalcourtduringSB277,anda been filed. (and it is not much of a prediction on myNew York Second Circuit Court of Appeals Here is my advice: part since the Indiana judge rejected it). decision in a Northport, Long Island case. In I think you should assume that no le- I know that the plaintiffs are also try- fact, as I recall, the first Supreme Court de-gal challenge, filed or to be filed against theing to wrap themselves in the mantel of thecision on the church case in California, the UC will stop the mandate from going intoSupreme Courts Cuomo case (which struckper curiam opinion by Justice Roberts cited effect in August 2021, and no lawsuit willdown religious restrictions during the pan- Jacobson with approval. So, while one can ar-stop the mandate for any part of the up- demic). The judge in the IU case rejected it.gue that Jacobson was wrongly decided and coming school year. I have some freedomI predict that the court of appeals will rejectshould be changed for a variety of reasons, to say this because I am not involved in anyit also (and the denial of the preliminaryits wrong to say that it has been overruled. such case and I dont want to be becauseinjunction is up on appellate review). TheIn these current UC cases, then, I am I dont think there is a snowballs chanceplaintiffs will then seek emergency reviewnotseeingafundamentalrightforany in hell that a district or superior court iswith the Supreme Court. My crystal ball isstudent or worker to study or work at the going to stop the UC mandate for a vaccinea little foggy about whether they will get aUC, which means a rational relationshipintended to stop the spread of the pandem- review by the Supremes, but I am vaguelywhich means the plaintiffs get tossed out ic virus. seeing that the application will be turnedof court.20 H ealtHF reedomN ews /s ummer2021'