On March 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in front of an en banc panel of 11 judges. Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), along with individual plaintiffs and California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), presented their case before the en banc panel—an uncommon and significant step—against Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for its Covid-19 vaccine mandate for employees.
After the plaintiffs won their appeal of the district court’s dismissal of the case, LAUSD requested en banc review of the ruling, likely in the hopes of receiving a more favorable hearing by a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges. Those hopes were quickly dashed as the federal judges peppered counsel for defendants with questions – because the law, the facts, and the principles of bodily autonomy and justice are squarely on the side of the plaintiffs.
What This Case Is About
At its core, Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al. is about the fundamental and basic human right to exercise medical freedom and religious expression. The case seeks to protect not only bodily autonomy but the constitutional rights of workers who were terminated, forced into early retirement, or sidelined due to LAUSD’s strict Covid-19 vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs include teachers, aides, and other staff who were either terminated or denied employment for declining a vaccine for religious or medical reasons.
While LAUSD rescinded the Covid injection mandate for employees in late September of 2023, it did so only after initial oral argument signaled potential legal trouble. Plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that this timing appears calculated to avoid judicial review by mooting the case —an argument supported by the doctrine of “voluntary cessation,” which says a party cannot escape legal consequences just by pausing an unlawful policy during litigation.
Highlights from the Courtroom
Attorney Scott Street, representing HFDF and the plaintiffs, made it clear: this is not a case that should be dismissed as “moot.” He eloquently argued that the school district has done nothing to reverse the harm caused by its policy—no compensation, no reinstatement, no acknowledgment of overreach. He pressed the court to recognize that the plaintiffs have ongoing injury, and that LAUSD has left the door open to reimposing the policy.
Several judges appeared skeptical of LAUSD’s claim that the case should be dismissed. They questioned the timing of the policy’s rescission—right after a prior court hearing didn’t go LAUSD’s way—and noted that the school district made no commitments to not reinstate the mandate in the future. In fact, when repealing the mandate, the judges noted that LAUSD publicly reserved the right to bring it back. In LAUSD’s board meeting September 26, 2023 when the vote to repeal the mandate was being discussed, LAUSD board president Jackie Goldberg shrieked “I do not regret one moment what we did, not one moment, not thirty seconds, not one tiny bit.” Moreover, when it came time to vote she said, “reluctantly yes.”
Of significance, a month before the latest court proceedings, the Ninth Circuit Court ordered the parties to brief the court regarding whether LAUSD, a locally elected body, should be entitled to 11th Amendment “sovereign immunity”—a legal shield typically reserved for state governments. During oral argument, judges asked many pointed questions regarding the subject of sovereign immunity with plaintiffs arguing LAUSD should not enjoy sovereign immunity and asking the Ninth Circuit to remand the case back to the district court so that they may amend their complaint and request damages for the more than 1000 employees shunted aside by the school district. Should the court side with the plaintiffs and decide to overturn California school district sovereign immunity, this would open up a path for employees to seek large damages from the school district.
A Constitutional Question of Bodily Autonomy
HFDF’s legal team also challenged the idea that vaccine mandates like LAUSD’s are always constitutionally valid under the old Jacobson v. Massachusetts standard. They argued that today’s Covid-19 shots—unlike the smallpox vaccine in Jacobson—don’t prevent transmission and lack long-term data, and thus raise new constitutional concerns.
In layman’s terms the plaintiffs are saying—if an injection does not prevent transmission or spread, whether to use that product, a therapeutic at best, must remain a personal and private decision as every individual has the basic human right to choose what goes into their bodies.
The district’s attorneys pushed back, claiming the policy was valid at the time due to public health risks. But HFDF maintains that constitutional rights don’t disappear in times of crisis—and if they do, the courts must intervene. In addition, federal health agencies such as CDC issued guidance in the summer of 2021 that the Covid shots do not stop transmission which should have lead to an adjustment of the LAUSD policy.
What’s Next
While a final ruling hasn’t yet been issued and likely won’t be issued for many months, the very fact that the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc is a clear signal that the issues raised are serious, and far from settled.
HFDF has always believed this case would make history and remains as optimistic as ever, especially after the very successful recent oral argument. “It is high time the courts reconciled Jacobson with more recent jurisprudence concluding that we all have a liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical interventions,” said HFDF president, Leslie Manookian. This case is now poised to shape legal precedent on vaccine mandates, government overreach, and individual rights—not just in California, but nationwide.
