Why the NYC teachers’ lawyers may be losing in the court .. vaccine mandate

.
In their ARGUMENTS the lawyers representing the teachers have failed to reference the following critical line of thought and cases:

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."

Also see Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986 in which the Court stated:

”In Storar, we recognized that a patient’s right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor’s obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient’s life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient’s liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.

In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to insure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own…”

And when a person’s liberty is infringed upon by government we find:

A government imposed act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

Nor did the lawyers cite “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618

And, finally, the lawyers representing the teachers have not used Jacobson v. Massachusetts, to their advantage and to substantiate the NYC mandate is overkill and not the least restrictive means to accomplish its alleged objective, which is required under “strict scrutiny”.

The court, in the Jacobson Case, stated in crystal clear language:

“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5.”

In today’s dollars, that would be about a $150.00 fine, and nothing near the loss of one’s income as a NYC teacher which is the penalty imposed upon NYC teachers, but not on other city workers!

A one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not “narrowly tailored” to achieve the government’s purpose __ a purpose which in this case must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning ___ and does not use the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny, e.g. see: Judge blocks Western Michigan’s vaccine mandate for athletes (religionnews.com)

In closing, and as a former New Yorker, I believe New York City voters deserve to be flushed down the sewer as they are and for electing and reelecting the despots they do. But I do have enormous compassion when people are deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed rights . . . even nitwitted teachers who have used their job to indoctrinate their students rather than educate them in the 3 Rs , and teach them to love their country. In the end, even NYC teachers deserve the protection afforded under strict scrutiny.

.

.
JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

It seems the Union Lawyers representing the NYC teachers, may be playing footsie with the vaccine jabbers in NYC.

What startled me about the lawyer’s appeal was they ignored citing Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986, a New York State Court of Appeals decision, to establish a fundamental right was being trampled upon by the NYC vaccine mandate. In the Rivers v Katz case the Court stated:

In Storar, we recognized that a patient’s right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor’s obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient’s life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient’s liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.

In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to insure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own

Why did the teachers Union Lawyers not cite this important case in order to require “strict scrutiny” protection to kick in for the teachers?

JWK

Vaccines mandates are constitutional. That why they are losing in court.

It’s a losing argument.

Allan

2 Likes

hmmm… lets see, he brought law, cases, review, and you brought… well… you

Plenty of SCOTUS precedent to back me up.

Allan

“One man’s liberty, they declared in a 7-2 ruling handed down the following February, cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease.”

Allan

which states have passed laws requiring covid vaccination?

Cambridge is a city not a state.

He brought precedent and you brought goal posts? :grin: i am kidding.

But yeah that decision is about city and not state

Why not describe the set of circumstances in rivers v Katz? I wonder. Did it deal in vaccination or non voluntary committal

Cherry picking. The forte hasn’t changed in years.

The precedent remains.

Watch and see. :grinning:

Allan

when statutes are passed let me know. the case clearly identifies the body that can create a mandate… the legislature.

I see you have made an assertion about “SCOTUS precedent”, but avoid quoting from the case. The fact is, the court, in the Jacobson Case, stated in crystal clear language:

“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5.”

In today’s dollars, that would be about a $150.00 fine, and nothing near the loss of one’s income as a NYC teacher which is the penalty imposed upon NYC teachers, but not on other city workers!

A one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not “narrowly tailored” to achieve the government’s purpose __ a purpose which in this case must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning ___ and does not use the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny, e.g. see: Judge blocks Western Michigan’s vaccine mandate for athletes (religionnews.com)

If you are going to make assertions about SC precedent, at least provide the case and those parts of the ruling you are talking about so we can have an intelligent discussion about your assertion.

JWK

The penalty matters not, the precedent for vax mandates is crystal clear.

Allan

Hence sotomayor refusal to issue an injunction.

https://abc7ny.com/covid-vaccine-mandate-deadline-supreme-court-teachers-vax-protest/11067731/

Allan

the precedent for the legislatures passing laws requiring vaccination is clear. executive mandates… not so much

So why the cold reject by sotomayor.

Allan

she denied an emergency injunction. the case can continue.

But why is my question.

Allan

…and in three or four years, once the case has made it through the Circuit, they can petition for cert.

Do you think the case will still be “live” by then?

because in her mind the emergency injunction was not warranted. those who lose their jobs will have legal recourse if they prevail in their suit, thus any damages can be recouped.