Recommended Citation
Richard H. Hughes IV and Dorit R. Reiss,
The Ninth Circuit’s Nod to Anti-Vaccine Advocates, 86
Ohio St. L.J. Online
1
(2025).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/faculty_scholarship/2140
Publication Date
2025
Abstract
On June 7, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that, while it did not go as far as anti-vaccine activists claimed, clearly drew on anti-vaccine tropes, and suggested a retreat from important public health precedents.
This Article explains the decision and the way in which it can undermine public health law. In short, the decision is problematic in two ways. First, it accepts claims that are untrue on their face. By ignoring the evidence and facts provided by public health authorities and experts, the opinion demonstrates further erosion of the high deference to expertise embodied in the classic Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Second, it seeks to limit Jacobson in seemingly innocuous, but dangerous ways. Specifically, it implies a fundamental right to refuse vaccination in the workplace for public employees, at least in relation to COVID-19 vaccines.
This commentary will introduce the case, explain the Jacobson standard, and then explain the Ninth Circuit’s decision and its problematic implications for public health law.
Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Ohio State Law Journal Online