See: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412
-
If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at 3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.*
-
The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.
and see . . .
-
In other words, having determined that the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights (and with no showing of a compelling interest demonstrated by the City), this Court is required to presume that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated the four elements required for this Court to order the requested injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, lack of an adequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and the public and private interests at stake. Id.*
-
Therefore, the Court ENJOINS Defendant City of Gainesville, as follows:*
a. The City shall not enforce the Vaccine Mandate policy.*
b. The City shall not terminate or discipline any employee for failure to comply with the Vaccine Mandate.*
-
The Court determines that, giving due regard for the public interest, no bond is required to be posted, pursuant to Rule 1.610(b).*
-
This injunction will continue in force until further order of the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Alachua County Family & Civil Justice Center, *
Gainesville, Florida on Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Monica Brasington, Circuit Judge
…
Now, perhaps someone will demonstrate how the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
