🚨THREAD: I want to make sure everyone understands this appellate decision about a COVID vaccine mandate at LAUSD in the 9th. Plaintiffs allege that the COVID-19 shot isn’t a vaccine, but a therapeutic. The court MUST accept that statement as TRUE at this stage of the suit. Because they must accept it as TRUE (they aren’t DECIDING FACTS) - they remanded the case back down to the district court. This thread is really good, but I already see people running wild with this.
There are several concerning things here, one of which is very old and relates to smallpox. The SCOTUS had ruled that a compulsory mandate for the smallpox vaccine was constitutional because the public safety risk SUPERSEDED individual liberty. That’s the ruling that the defendants in this case used to justify their motion to dismiss.
But because the Plaintiffs here argue the therapeutic route (with CDC proof of their claims) the SCOTUS decision doesn’t apply. The 9th wrote that the district court erred in their interpretation.
Also, not so fast on this, because if the case holds on this precedent, all that will happen is that the government will say that EVERY vaccine is effective at preventing spread to get around this, and NEVER say they aren’t effective at preventing spread and are *just* effective at preventing severe disease.
In short, while this decision from the 9th is very encouraging, it DOES NOT determine that the COVID shots can’t be mandated because they don’t prevent COVID. It merely says “the plaintiffs say that this is a therapeutic, and at this stage we have to accept that as true, so this case must continue and has merits. Have at it again, lower court)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
