Supreme Court rejects challenge to Indiana University's vaccination requirement

[laylalex 7,284]

Quote

 

Eight Indiana students asked the court for an emergency order, arguing that the risks associated with the vaccine outweighed the potential benefits to the population in their age group. "Protection of others does not relieve our society from the central canon of medical ethics requiring voluntary and informed consent," they told the justices, seeking an emergency order to block the vaccine requirement.

A federal judge ruled last month that the school had a right to pursue "a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty, and staff." The students have many options, the judge said, such as applying for an exemption, taking the semester off, viewing classes online, or attending another university.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, agreed. It noted that the Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that a state can require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox. Indiana's requirement is less demanding, the court said, allowing exemptions for students who object on the basis of medical conditions or religious beliefs.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-indiana-university-s-vaccination-requirement-n1276714

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Well, what else would SCOTUS do?  It's not a constitutional issue.

[laylalex 7,284]

Errrrrr, IANAL but I think it is a constitutional issue? I mean, the students were appealing a ruling denying their request for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the rule while the case was being litigated, and the denial was upheld by an appeals court. https://apnews.com/article/health-courts-education-indiana-coronavirus-pandemic-eb1408814f3d3c7921fa371675f8c617

 

I found the original order denying the injunction: http://www.franczek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Klaassen-v.-Indiana-Univ.pdf It looks like the court denied the request because the university was acting constitutionally.

Quote

The court now denies their motion. The Constitution and longstanding precedent should endure. Recognizing the students’ significant liberty to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the Fourteenth Amendment permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty, and staff. Today, on this preliminary record, the university has done so for its campus communities. The students haven’t established a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment claim or the many requirements that must precede the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.

Not only that but

Quote

Barrett, who is responsible for emergency appeals from Indiana, denied the students’ request without comment, without seeking a response from the state, and without referring the request to the full court for a vote – suggesting that she and the other justices did not regard it as a particularly close case.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/08/barrett-leaves-indiana-universitys-vaccine-mandate-in-place/

 

Just because she denied the request doesn't mean it's not a constitutional issue -- if SCOTUSBlog is right, it's because she thinks the other rulings were correct.

[Dashinka 24,488]

Maybe the students should vote with their wallets.  Not every school is mandating vaccines.

[laylalex 7,284]

That's what the rulings have said. There are other schools to attend, so the students have choices to exercise. Because there are choices the public health restrictions do not violate the students' 14th amendment rights. 

 

Hey, maybe my dad is right and I should go to law school!

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

45 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That's what the rulings have said. There are other schools to attend, so the students have choices to exercise. Because there are choices the public health restrictions do not violate the students' 14th amendment rights. 

 

Hey, maybe my dad is right and I should go to law school!

Oh please do. We need two party poopers in here 😄 I hope I didnt conjure up she who walks behind the jury pool 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Nature Boy 2.0

[Dashinka 24,488]

Thought about going to law school once, the thought did not last long.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

6 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Thought about going to law school once, the thought did not last long.

You're far too brilliant to waste your life like that.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

The request was denied because no constitutional right was violated.  If you know of an article or amendment that may have been in jeopardy  over the mandate, please provide it here so I can be educated.  After all, I often don't understand things, remember?

[TBoneTX 45,266]

Nuremburg Code.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

9 hours ago, laylalex said:

Hey, maybe my dad is right and I should go to law school!

Advisable only for those already dead inside.

 

8 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Oh please do. We need two party poopers in here 😄 I hope I didnt conjure up she who walks behind the jury pool 

I regret to inform you that you have. Punishment deferred until a later date; I am as merciful as I am just.

 

1 hour ago, LIBrty4all said:

The request was denied because no constitutional right was violated.  If you know of an article or amendment that may have been in jeopardy  over the mandate, please provide it here so I can be educated.  After all, I often don't understand things, remember?

I regret to inform you that that is not what you said supra. You said:

20 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Well, what else would SCOTUS do?  It's not a constitutional issue.

It was a constitutional issue. That no right was violated does not negate the question of whether or not a constitutional question was presented to the Court. Indeed, the very decision that no constitutional right was violated is in itself considering a constitutional issue. The masochist considering law school who pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment was at issue is correct. The application was denied because the district court properly ruled that the plaintiffs/applicants could not prove all the elements necessary for the imposition of a preliminary injunction, which itself depended upon whether they could prove (in part) that they were likely to prevail at trial. Since the thrust of the underlying complaint hinges upon a due process claim, there is necessarily a Constitutional issue at play.

 

Be good to one another and do not call me over the weekend.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

44 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

I regret to inform you that that is not what you said supra. You said:

It was a constitutional issue. That no right was violated does not negate the question of whether or not a constitutional question was presented to the Court. Indeed, the very decision that no constitutional right was violated is in itself considering a constitutional issue. The masochist considering law school who pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment was at issue is correct. The application was denied because the district court properly ruled that the plaintiffs/applicants could not prove all the elements necessary for the imposition of a preliminary injunction, which itself depended upon whether they could prove (in part) that they were likely to prevail at trial. Since the thrust of the underlying complaint hinges upon a due process claim, there is necessarily a Constitutional issue at play.

 

Be good to one another and do not call me over the weekend.

So just like I said... no constitutional right was violated, hence ACB dismissed it outright.  No need to waste the SCOTUS benchs' time with it.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[laylalex 7,284]

1 hour ago, LIBrty4all said:

So just like I said... no constitutional right was violated, hence ACB dismissed it outright.  No need to waste the SCOTUS benchs' time with it.

 

Ummm, that's not what you said at first. You said that SCOTUS denied the appeal because it's not a constitutional issue. But ... it is? It's a threshold question if what I am reading is correct: are the students' 14th amendment rights likely to hold up at the end of the case so a preliminary injunction should be issued now? I mean, you can't get to "denied" without deciding on the constitutionality of the question itself. 

 

Here's the district court opinion which both the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS said they did not disagree with: 

Quote

This case presents that question: whether Indiana University has acted constitutionally in mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for its students, as announced on May 21, 2021. Albeit, and this should not be overlooked, this case does so only in the context of a preliminary injunction motion, not for a final decision on the merits.

...

The court now denies their motion. The Constitution and longstanding precedent should endure. Recognizing the students' significant liberty to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the Fourteenth Amendment permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty, and staff. Today, on this preliminary record, the university has done so for its campus communities. The students haven't established a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment claim or the many requirements that must precede the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.

https://scholar.google.cz/scholar_case?case=17152746327744027819&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

As I said, IANAL but that looks to me like there was a constitutional issue that was decided properly the first time. 

[TBoneTX 45,266]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

That no right was violated does not negate the question of whether or not a constitutional question was presented to the Court.

[T-B. pops aspirin]  Uh, we couldn't disagree with you less, no Maven ma'am... er, si Maven ma'am... er...

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

.

 

Be good to one another and do not call me over the weekend.

Why ? Is your rate higher on the weekend?