In what can only be described as convoluted reasoning, federal Judge David C. Nye dismissed with prejudice Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. against the City of Hailey, Idaho. We are truly taken aback by this ruling as it seems like the opinion was shoehorned into a foregone conclusion.
First, the judge decided that the plaintiffs lacked true injury-in-fact, and therefore lacked standing to bring the claim. He wrote that masks are a “relatively simple and unintrusive [sic] requirement that citizens wear…to protect their own health, and the health of others,” despite the ample scientific evidence, and CDC’s and FDA’s own admissions, that masks do neither.
Moreover, Judge Nye concluded that plaintiffs were not injured by the Hailey ordinance mandating masks writing, “because there is no causal connection between the City’s actions and Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.” He somehow reasoned that plaintiffs who suffered injuries were not being forced to mask by the city’s ordinance, but, if an ordinance is not force, what exactly is it?
When the Hailey police chief posts to social media that he will enforce the mask ordinance which carried a fine, does Judge Nye still believe there is no injury, that the plaintiffs are not being forced to wear masks DUE TO THE ORDINANCE and that any injuries attendant to them are not causal? This reasoning is patently absurd.
With decades of research supporting them, our experts proved that masks are neither unobtrusive nor effective at preventing disease spread. While we submitted over 150 scientific references documenting the dangers and inefficacy of masks, Judge Nye and his clerks either read none of them or utterly disregarded them, instead, deferring to the edicts of the CDC just because they are the CDC.
In stark contrast, the City of Hailey’s expert, a retired doctor who has not practiced medicine in ten years, submitted just a few citations in support of his opinion.
Judge Nye further ruled that he didn’t believe that masks implicated a fundamental right, so there was no set of facts or scientific evidence we could bring that could overcome the fact that he believed that masks are rationally related to protecting public health. This is a legal issue. A fundamental right requires a higher degree of scrutiny, non-fundamental rights require only a rational argument hurdle. We argued mask mandates amount to a human experiment and a violation of fundamental rights, therefore, required an evaluation of the scientific evidence. Judge Nye chose to dismiss our legitimate and reasonable arguments.
From our perspective, breathing is a fundamental human right. It is not something government has the power or authority to restrict for any reason whatsoever. Forced covering of our two and only airways is inhumane and coercive, not to mention a charade given the abundant evidence showing they lack any material efficacy.
Second, we distinguished our mask case from all other mask cases previously brought and dismissed but Judge Nye, or his clerks rather, completely disregarded all that case law and argumentation. To provide some background, judges have younger lawyers clerk for them, so the clerks likely crafted this. And most lawyers are liberal, the younger ones especially, and therefore likely to side with government, no matter how misguided the government policy might be.
Third, the opinion states, “Plaintiffs noted at oral argument that disagreements within the scientific community are at the heart of science and innovation. Be that as it may, when—as here—there is not a mere disagreement, but rather an abundance of overwhelming evidence against a particular opinion, those fringe opinions becomes [sic] suspect.”
This perspective is particularly concerning as the true fringe science is that which is being manufactured by CDC and other vested interests of the medical complex. The genuine science is on our side and any reasonable person should be able to see that our experts and the robust and concerning science we submitted in our affidavits are far clearer, more conclusive, and compelling than that of the lone “expert” for Hailey, the former St. Luke’s CEO, who submitted virtually nothing.
What Judge Nye is saying is that even if our experts are qualified on the subject of masks, which they are – in stark contrast to the other Hailey’s expert – any opinion that does not comport with the official orthodoxy of CDC, is invalid. That is heartbreaking and a reflection of how broken our institutions are. Judge Nye has a decent reputation for fairness so we had hoped for much more from him.
Most of our institutions have simply been captured by special interests – including many of the courts.
We are considering next steps, such as appeal.
