The app for independent voices
BAD NEWS: Courts Rule Against Medical Freedom. Support Vaccine Tyranny. (Images from articles.)
9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court rules against Health Freedom Defense Fund (Leslie Manookian) and LAUSD employees vs. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD): tinyurl.com/2ee2ps5t
U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan (Federal) rules against former New York City firefighter O’Brian Pastrana whose heart was severely injured by COVID vaccine after employer rejected medical exemption following severe reaction to first dose 🆕. Scroll to bottom for link (Substack can be weird!):
Last updated 08/06/25
ED NOTE
😵 Medical freedom is dead in America if plaintiffs are unable to appeal these horrific rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court — and win.
Essentially, the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruled that our Constitutional rights take a back seat to opinions and whims from scared "public health officials," who have been proven wrong time and time again over the centuries — more than 200 years — starting with forced smallpox shots in the early 1800s. See A Midwestern Doctor's article for a bit of America's shameful history in this regard: tinyurl.com/yvbcskhy.
📌 Recall that Leslie Manookian was a key player in Idaho's Medical Freedom Act, S1210 (2025). Coverage here: tinyurl.com/5n7w3u9a
__________
Unfortunately, as Sasha Latypova has explained, COVID shots and other military countermeasures were “legal” because of PREP Act and other laws that made them so. These laws are unconstitutional. They must be repealed or America will never be free again.
See some of these sections in Latypova’s Substack:
📌 EUA Countermeasures and PREP Act: tinyurl.com/2ux2jzft
📌 Pandemic Preparedness Racket: tinyurl.com/mr2pv5hn
📌 mRNA, Gene Therapies and Biomanufacturing Fraud: tinyurl.com/3pjjr5kd
__________
ED NOTE
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a misunderstood ruling that simply allowed a fine for noncompliance — has unjustly been used as the basis for forced sterilization of “feeble minded” in Virginia and forced "vaccination" of millions without regard to their constitutional rights.__________
Case 1 (Summarized below): Federal Court Dismisses Manookian's Case Against LA Schools’ COVID Vaccine Mandates for Employees. The court ruled that shot mandates are constitutional if public health authorities say a shot will protect public health — regardless of whether a shot prevents transmission or provides immunity. Dissenting judges said the ruling comes “perilously close” to giving the government “carte blanche” to require medical treatments. By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (08/04/25). Includes links to related articles.
__________
🆕Case 2 (Not summarized, but worth reading) ‘Chilling’ Decision: Judge Rules Against Firefighter Injured by COVID Vaccine After Employer Rejected Medical Exemption. A federal judge ruled that New York firefighter O’Brian Pastrana, who experienced a severe heart injury after his second COVID-19 vaccine, was not entitled to financial compensation. Pastrana’s employer denied his request for a medical exemption based on the firefighter’s severe reaction to his first dose. By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (08/04/25). Includes links to related articles.
__________
Summary of Case 1 — Manookian Lawsuit Loss (ChatGPT, edited; image from article)
A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees.
The ruling, made by the 9th Circuit’s full panel, upheld that mandates are constitutional if public health officials claim vaccines promote public safety, regardless of actual effectiveness in preventing transmission.
Dissenting judges warned the decision dangerously expands government power over medical decisions.
Plaintiffs, including Health Freedom Defense Fund and LAUSD employees, may appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing their rights were violated by being forced to take a treatment that did not prevent infection or spread.
Background of the Case
Filed by: Health Freedom Defense Fund and employees affiliated with California Educators for Medical Freedom.
Target: LAUSD’s vaccine mandate for employees, implemented in August 2021.
Initial Outcome: Over 1,000 employees lost their jobs due to noncompliance.
Claim: The COVID shot was a medical treatment, not a vaccine, as it did not prevent transmission, and thus could not be mandated.
Court Decisions and Legal Arguments
Original Ruling (June 2024): A three-judge panel allowed the case to proceed.
Reversal (July 31, 2025): An 11-judge “en banc” panel overturned that decision, dismissing the lawsuit. (“En banc” refers to a special procedure where all judges of a particular court hear a case.)
Legal Basis: Relied on 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, allowing vaccine mandates for public health.
CDC Guidance at the Time: Claimed vaccines reduced transmission risk, giving LAUSD reasonable grounds to mandate the shot. (This claim was proven false even during clinical trials.)
Dissenting Opinions
Concern: This ruling “comes perilously close” to granting unchecked government power over personal medical choices.
Main Arguments:
Plaintiffs made plausible claims that the shot didn't stop transmission.
If true, a higher legal standard should be applied.
Courts should not “blindly accept the mere say-so of government.”
Potential Next Steps
Supreme Court Appeal: Plaintiffs are considering escalation to U.S. Supreme Court.
Rationale: To address unconstitutional overreach and insufficient legal analysis by the court’s majority.
Key Quotes
Leslie Manookian (HFDF President): “This ruling should terrify every American… All that matters is that someone is afraid and tells you that this is the right way to address the problem, and then you have to comply.”
Dissenting Judges: “We should not blindly accept the mere say-so of the government.”
Policy Impact
Mandate Lifted: LAUSD ended the COVID shot mandate in September 2023, after oral arguments had begun.
Ongoing Legal Relevance: Plaintiffs argue the mandate caused lasting harm and similar future mandates remain possible.
Related articles in The Defender (linked in the source article)
Employees Can Sue L.A. Schools Over COVID Vaccine Mandate Because Shots Don’t Prevent Transmission, Appeals Court Rules
Los Angeles Schools Drop COVID Vaccine Mandate — What’s Next for Fired Employees Who Sued the District?
CHD Weighs Appeal to Supreme Court in Rutgers Case After Court Rules Students Have No Right to Refuse COVID Shot
