Original Article By Frank Bergman
A federal appeals court has just handed down a chilling decision, ruling that American citizens have no federal right to challenge draconian Covid “vaccine” mandates.
In its Curtis v. Inslee ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by former PeaceHealth employees who were fired in 2021 for refusing Washington State’s COVID jab requirement for healthcare workers.
The court concluded that the workers had no statutory or constitutional right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the mandates, meaning there is no federal pathway for citizens to seek damages over being forced to take the shots or lose their jobs.
No Right to Refuse “Investigational” Covid Injections
The plaintiffs argued that they were coerced into taking what they described as “investigational” emergency-use “vaccines” and were never fully informed of their right to refuse.
They cited a long list of statutes and regulations, including the FDA’s EUA statute, the PREP Act, the ICCPR, and CDC program agreements.
However, the court rejected them all, ruling that none of these sources creates privately enforceable rights under § 1983.
On constitutional grounds, the Ninth Circuit doubled down.
The court ruled that there is no fundamental right to refuse “vaccination” without consequences, citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts and its own recent decision in Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho.
At-will employment, the court said, is not a protected property right under procedural due process.
Equal protection claims also failed because the mandate had medical and religious exemptions and was deemed to serve a “rational” public-health goal, according to the court.
Workers Left Without Federal Recourse
The ruling means that Washington’s 2021 vaccine mandate, imposed by then-Gov. Jay Inslee and mirrored by PeaceHealth’s employment policy, stands unchallenged in federal court.
State-law claims against Inslee were dismissed outright, while remaining claims against PeaceHealth were punted back to state courts.
The court made clear that so-called EUA and “investigational drug” arguments will not open a federal door to challenge mandates.
It marks a devastating blow to medical freedom advocates.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision reinforces that Covid-era “vaccine” mandates remain legally durable, especially in healthcare settings.
It confirms that federal courts will treat mandates as rational public-health measures, even when exemptions are limited and even when employees lose their livelihoods for refusal.
In short, the ruling effectively leaves workers at the mercy of state policies and employers, with no federal protection for those who resist coerced “vaccination.”
This comes even as mounting evidence links Covid injections to autoimmune disorders, turbo cancers, and DNA contamination, and continues to raise questions about the safety of the shots.
Yet courts remain unmoved, leaning on century-old precedent to uphold mandates at the expense of personal freedom.
Be the first to comment