In Let Them Choose v. San Diego Unified School District, published November 22, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 affirmed a trial court judgment determining that the defendant school district's COVID-19 requirements were preempted by state law. The district adopted a "Vaccination Roadmap" requiring students 16 or older to be vaccinated for COVID-19 in order to attend in-person classes and participate in sports and other extracurricular activities. Unvaccinated students in this group were involuntarily placed on independent study. A nonprofit corporation and the parent of a 16-year-old student filed complaints challenging the Roadmap. The cases were consolidated. On a motion for judgment, the trial court ruled the district's COVID-19 immunization requirements preempted.
The appellate court agreed. Health and Safety Code section 120335 provides that a school shall not unconditionally admit students who have not been vaccinated for 10 listed diseases. It also requires vaccination for any other disease deemed appropriate by the State Department of Public Health, after taking into consideration the recommendations of several medical groups. In 2015, the Legislature considered whether vaccination should be mandated on a school district by school district basis. A bill analysis explained that a statewide standard was preferred. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, section 6025 provides that a school shall unconditionally admit or allow continued attendance to any pupil who has provided documentation for each immunization for listed diseases. The Roadmap is preempted by these provisions because it both contradicts state law (conflict preemption) and enters a field already occupied by state law (field preemption). By creating a comprehensive state procedure to determine the compulsory vaccinations for school attendance, the statute by negative-but-necessary implication provides that students who comply with state immunization requirements (and other eligibility rules) are entitled to attend schools, and that districts are not allowed to add their own vaccine mandates. The Department of Public Health interprets the statute the same way in regulation 6025. The court deferred to this agency interpretation. The regulation enters a field the state has fully occupied, because the Legislature has covered the matter fully and completely, defining the who, what, when, and where of compulsory student vaccination, leaving districts no discretion in the matter. The court rejected the multiple arguments the district made otherwise.
Comments