On Monday, May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to consider the case of Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Alberto Carvalho. By refusing to consider the plight of those whose livelihoods were lost due to unscientific and coercive vaccine mandates, the Court has shown its true colors. Rather than weigh in on thorny but essential questions of the day, it abdicated its duty to ensure that government adheres to the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. And by declining to review the case, SCOTUS has, by default, endorsed medical mandates by the state.
For almost five years since the peak of authoritarian overreach during the Covid-19 era, HFDF and our co-plaintiffs have fought for justice for the hundreds of Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD) workers who were fired for not taking a rushed injectable product in 2021.
The 9th Circuit Court went back and forth, siding at one point with the plaintiffs on common-sense grounds of bodily autonomy and the ineffectiveness of the injection. Finally, though, it sided with the defendants in its en banc ruling of all the District’s judges in 2025—essentially ruling that even if a “vaccine” like the Covid-19 injection is well-known to fail to stop transmission or infection, it can still be mandated if an administrator has a reason to think it might work to help protect public health or the vague promise of “safety.”
In so doing, it removed all meaningful limits on governmental medical mandates by including such dubious and ineffective products under the existing legal umbrella of the Jacobson vs Massachusetts ruling from 1905. This eugenics-era ruling stated that if the government has a “rational” public health interest to mandate vaccination, it can enact a fine to facilitate its implementation, overriding personal liberty. At least until now this objectionable ruling from over 120 years ago was applied when mandating vaccination only—with this recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court, which the Supreme Court failed to correct or consider, it opens the door to abuse on a far wider scale.
By rejecting the Writ of Certiorari submitted by HFDF in this case, the Supreme Court has not only effectively kept the largest federal district in the country mired in eugenics-era policy and law, but also extended that shameful paradigm to include almost any category of medical treatment, including potentially forced sterilization, psychiatric intervention, or other horrors.
This will be looked upon as one of the darkest chapters for the high court, like Buck vs. Bell, the 1927 forced sterilization ruling that has still, amazingly, not been fully overturned. But the parallels go even further back in history—at least in 1857, with the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision, which perpetuated slavery for another decade, the Justices had the modicum of dignity to rule publicly on the issue.
While the indifference from this Supreme Court is a devastating blow to health freedom and bodily autonomy in the short term, it is a strategic error of tremendous proportions in the long term for the coercive biomedical system. In that way, the similarities to Dred Scott are more hopeful; a failure to faithfully interpret the Constitution and consider our inalienable rights led inexorably to public outrage and a seismic change in public policy and law within a generation.
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to act in this case will only strengthen state-based and local push-back against federal excess and arrogance, and the incoherence and contradictions of the 9th Circuit Court’s most recent ruling will only shine a spotlight on the fact that “vaccine” as a functional term no longer has a cogent definition—if it is not even claimed to stop transmission or infection, how is it a unique product at all compared to other medicines?
The Supreme Court’s collective cowardice and its institutional weakness will not make this issue go away. Rather, it will accelerate the campaign for medical freedom and bodily autonomy. While this decision is heart-breaking, HFDF is more committed than ever to helping inform state-based legislative action to protect constitutional rights, and representing those Americans whose rights are violated by the unconstitutional overreach of government when it comes to their health.
