In Health Freedom defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, published June 7, 2024, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court order granting judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiffs challenged the defendant California school district's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy. The district reversed course on the policy multiple times. The district court held that under Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, rational basis review applied to a vaccination program. It rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the COVID-19 vaccine is not a vaccine because it allegedly does not prevent disease, but instead mitigates it and is therefore a medical treatment. The district court relied on CDC documents the district submitted, of which it took judicial notice. After the oral argument of the case, the defendant district rescinded its COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The majority held that the case was not moot. The district twice rescinded the policy when facing litigation risk, including after oral argument. The majority deemed this a tactical manipulation of the federal courts invoking the voluntary cessation exception to mootness. The district did not carry its heavy burden of showing it would not revert to imposing a similar policy. On the merits, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the Jacobsen rule for vaccination programs did not apply. The judicially noticed documents did not contradict the complaint's allegations sufficiently to rebut them. The majority remanded the case to the district court. A concurring judge raised the possibility that the district had sovereign immunity to the suit. Another concurring judge opined that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to invoke the plaintiffs' liberty right to be free of unwanted medical treatment. A dissenting judge opined the case was moot.