A lot is going around on social media related to the 9th Circuit ruling on Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Alberto Carvalho. There is discussion online that this means mandates are done. Unfortunately – that is untrue. This very short substack is to clarify the meaning of this case.
The case is related whether the mRNA jab mandates were allowed under the law. The important point that people are discussing is the part of the case referencing Jacob v. Massachusetts – the case that is relied on to impose vaccine mandates nationally. In the current case the court essentially held that there is a plausible argument that the COVID jabs do not fall under the definition of “vaccine” as it applies in Jacobson.
In Jacobson, the court allowed a small civil penalty to be imposed if someone refused a vaccine in certain circumstances. The definition of vaccine in Jacobson recognized that to be a vaccine an intervention would necessarily prevent the spread of smallpox. In the current case the argument is that, since the COVID jabs do not prevent the transmission of COVID it is not a vaccine but rather a medical intervention. I agree with that argument but this ruling does not mean that argument was won in court.
Hellbound and Down 