mandates

Indiana University vaccine mandate upheld by Federal court

This article about the Indiana University vaccine mandate was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.

Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.

On June 21, 2021, eight students, represented by attorney James Bopp Jr., filed a complaint challenging the Indiana University vaccine mandate. On July 18, 2021, Judge Damon R. Leichty, from the federal district court for the Northern District of Indiana, appointed to the court by President Donald Trump, rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in a lengthy, thoughtful decision that made it clear the plaintiffs’ chances of success on the merits are very low.

The decision is important in setting the standard for reviewing constitutional claims against university mandates, in making it clear that a reasonable university mandate has a good chance to be upheld, but that public health authorities – or universities – do not have carte blanche to impose any requirements they want, but can legitimately act to prevent disease and improve safety. It thoroughly and intelligently addresses the scientific claims of the plaintiffs – and the approach to them. It examines the difference between a general challenge and a challenge based on a fundamental right like freedom of religion.

It does not substantially add to the discussion of whether universities can mandate a vaccine under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA); though it does address the facts of the EUA, it does not go into the legal arguments about the EUA law that were addressed in a decision against a Texas hospital. Nor does it directly confront the Indiana passport law, likely because the university changed in mandate in a way that, according to the attorney general, did not clash with it.

Finally, the decision was 101 pages. I cannot summarize all of it in a reasonable-length post, so this has to be a short summary of what I think are the main points. But it’s worth reading. There is a lot of thoughtful, in-depth analysis in it I just don’t have space for.

COVID vaccine mandate lawsuit filed in Texas by Methodist Hospital employees

This article about the employee lawsuit against the Texas Methodist Hospital COVID vaccine mandate was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.

In June 2021, employees of Methodist Hospital filed a lawsuit in a Texas court challenging the hospital’s decision to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. Although the lawsuit does raise one issue of legal uncertainty – whether you can mandate a vaccine under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) – its claim there is weak, and its other claims are a combination of incorrect factual claims and implausible legal claims.

The suit should have little chance of success – but because of the timing, this may be the first legal decision we have on the question of mandating EUA vaccines. The hospital’s mandate has a deadline of June 7, 2021. It seems like most of the plaintiffs – as far as I can tell from the complaint – have already been dismissed, so the deadline may not require fast handling, but the fact that there is a very near deadline may affect scheduling.

Connecticut repeals vaccine religious exemption to school mandates

This article, the Connecticut legislature repeals the vaccine religious exemption for school mandates, was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.

On April 27, 2021, the Connecticut legislature passed HB6423, a bill that repeals the religious exemption to Connecticut’s school vaccine mandate. Connecticut never had a personal belief exemption, so if the Governor signed it – and he indicated he will – the only exemption available in Connecticut will be a medical one.

That said, as part of the compromises to pass the bill, children currently in school, from kindergarten on, were grandfathered – allowed to keep the exemption.

This post addresses, together, three things:

First, the process to pass a bill in most states is hard and arduous, and most bills fail.
Second, the anti-vaccine movement fought aggressively against the bill, and the fight was national.
And third, what the bill does.

Employer vaccine mandates for COVID-19 – a legal and ethical discussion

A recent article about employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates, by Professors Dorit Rubinstein Reiss and Arthur Caplan, examined its legal and ethical issues. Their thought-provoking analysis should be part of our discussions about the new vaccines.

I think that employer vaccine mandates, especially during this COVID-19 pandemic, are something that should be considered everywhere. However, employer mandates are very controversial, with ten states already considering prohibitions to them.

I am going to excerpt some of their points in the article while adding my own thoughts on the topic. I think this is worthy of a wide discussion.

COVID-19 vaccines employer mandates – legal basics for and against

This article about COVID-19 vaccines employer mandates was written by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), who is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy, and the law.

Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease. She is also a member of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy.

The goal of this post is to give a short overview of the law surrounding employer mandates for COVID-19 vaccines. Two caveats. First, this post is not taking a position on whether a mandate is a good or bad idea for a specific employer: it is just setting out the law. Second, this post is focused on employers choosing to require vaccines, not states.

As preliminary comments, I want to remind readers that we do not actually know whether COVID-19 vaccines will dramatically reduce transmission. We know they are very effective at protecting recipients (and very safe), and we have reasonable grounds to expect they will reduce transmission somewhat, but we do not yet know to what extent.

A workplace or employer mandate is, in part, justified by protecting the workforce – employers are expected, sometimes required, to minimize risks to their workers, and may be liable for work-related harms through workers’ compensation, but mandates are often justified by the protection of others – in this case, co-workers and customers – and if the vaccines do not reduce transmission, there is less justification.

We also do not yet know how long the COVID-19 vaccines’ immunity will last, and whether there are very rare side effects that have not yet been discovered. So this discussion has some uncertainty built-in. That uncertainty, however, would not directly change much of the legal framework described below.

School vaccine mandates do not illegally discriminate – Prof. Dorit Reiss

Anti-vaccine activists have repeatedly claimed that statutes abolishing non-medical exemptions from school vaccine mandates are discriminatory. Some went as far as to compare it to segregation. Courts in California and New York, echoing years of jurisprudence, rejected these claims in recent years in no uncertain claims, making it clear that school mandates are not discriminatory.Read More »School vaccine mandates do not illegally discriminate – Prof. Dorit Reiss

Another SB277 lawsuit rejected – anti-vaccine Voice for Choice loses

On 20 November 2018, the California court of appeal for the third appellate district, in a strong decision, rejected a challenge by the anti-vaccine organization A Voice for Choice and three individual plaintiffs to SB277, California’s law removing the personal… Read More »Another SB277 lawsuit rejected – anti-vaccine Voice for Choice loses

Italian vaccine mandate – implementation delayed – another UPDATE

On Monday, the Italian Senate passed a large bill that, among other things, delayed the implementation of the Italian vaccine mandate passed in 2017 until the 2019-2020 school year. This short post explains what this means – and does not mean.… Read More »Italian vaccine mandate – implementation delayed – another UPDATE

Israel vaccine law proposal – seeking balance to improve vaccination rates

With the support of a local pro-vaccine non-profit made of parents and professional volunteers, two parliament members are proposing an Israel vaccine law to improve immunization rates. This and other proposals are a response to a measles outbreak made up mostly of unvaccinated individuals. The proposal explicitly seeks to improve disease prevention while minimizing the effect on autonomy. It does so with a mix of measures that mirror laws existing in other countries and new ideas.

While the proposal is likely to face criticism from both immunization opponents and those seeking stronger measures, the proposed Israel vaccine law has potential to improve immunization rates in Israel and may be a better fit for Israel’s situation than alternatives. It is clear that a lot of thought went into it.Read More »Israel vaccine law proposal – seeking balance to improve vaccination rates

California needs a tougher vaccine mandate – many fraudulent exemptions

California lawmakers took major steps in 2015 to push more school-aged children to have all of the required vaccinations necessary to reduce the risk of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This vaccine mandate, established by California SB277 sponsored by state Senator, and pediatrician, Dr. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento. The law specifically barred parents from utilizing personal belief exemption as a basis to refuse to have their children vaccinated.

The vaccine mandate had a very quick pay off. In 2017, the state Department of Public Health reported that the vaccine uptake was around 95.6% of kindergartners, the highest seen in California since the 2001-2002 school year. The uptake rate had increased, as of 2017, 5.2 percentage points from 2015, prior to SB277.