The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case

HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND ET AL VS MEGAN K. REILLY ET AL: THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING
The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.
The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.
Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.
In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.
UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO
Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.
Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.
Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.
The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.
Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!
Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.
But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.
But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.
THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE
But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.
However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.
So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.
So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.
However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.
MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON
Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.
But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.
Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.
Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso