{"id":2649780,"date":"2026-08-26T08:32:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T12:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-asked-to-inject-dose-of-clarity-into-vaccine-mandate-jurisprudence\/"},"modified":"2026-08-26T08:43:57","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T12:43:57","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-asked-to-inject-dose-of-clarity-into-vaccine-mandate-jurisprudence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-asked-to-inject-dose-of-clarity-into-vaccine-mandate-jurisprudence\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Asked To Clarify Its Vaccine Mandate Jurisprudence"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-asked-to-inject-dose-of-clarity-into-vaccine-mandate-jurisprudence%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2649780&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The upcoming Supreme Court case Boysen v. PeaceHealth presents an opportunity for the Court to clarify and possibly correct lower courts\u2019 interpretations of vaccine mandates, notably in the context of COVID-19. The case involves Oregon healthcare workers who challenged their employer and state mandates requiring COVID vaccination or exemptions, citing violations of their constitutional rights, including bodily autonomy and due process. Lower courts dismissed these challenges, affirming adherence to the precedent set by jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), wich upheld smallpox vaccination mandates under police power for public health. However, critics like NCLA argue that Jacobson does not support mandates for vaccines like COVID-19 shots, which do not prevent transmission, especially when such mandates conflict with individual rights. They contend that lower courts have misapplied jacobson, interpreting it narrowly and allowing broad government mandates beyond its original scope. The Supreme Court has historically declined to hear such cases, but if it takes up Boysen, justices\u2019 positions-particularly those of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett-will be crucial. The case could influence future vaccine mandate policies and clarify constitutional limits on government health mandates.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>America\u2019s lower federal courts have often misconstrued a pivotal Supreme Court ruling to legalize expansive Covid vaccine mandates. Fortunately for the justices (and everyday Americans), a pending case gives the court the perfect opportunity to correct such flaws.<\/p>\n<p>In the coming weeks, the high court is expected to consider whether to take up and hear arguments in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/25-1280.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Boysen v. PeaceHealth<\/a><\/em>. The case deals with a challenge brought by Oregon health care workers against their employer and the state\u2019s Covid jab mandates. <\/p>\n<p>While the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to take up cases involving such requirements in recent years, New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione sees <em>Boysen<\/em> as a great opportunity for the high court to finally step in and correct the lower courts\u2019 flawed jurisprudence on the matter.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cDisease isn\u2019t going to go away. I can\u2019t say when there\u2019ll be another pandemic, but they\u2019ve been in our history,\u201d Vecchione told The Federalist. \u201cThe panic will happen again and mandates will happen again, and everybody should want to control their own medical decisions when it doesn\u2019t affect anyone else. The court should clarify that is the law as it now stands.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2>Background<\/h2>\n<p><em>Boysen<\/em> traces back to August 2021, when the nonprofit health care system PeaceHealth and the state of Oregon <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/district-courts\/oregon\/ordce\/6:2023cv01229\/174935\/34\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">mandated<\/a> that health care workers either obtain a Covid shot or receive an approved religious or medical exemption. PeaceHealth subsequently terminated the plaintiffs after they declined to adhere to such requirements.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth and former Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and former Director of Oregon Health Authority Patrick Allen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in August 2023. <\/p>\n<p>In doing so, they alleged violations of their 14th Amendment rights, \u201cincluding their bodily autonomy right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, freedom from unconstitutional conditions on employment and federally funded benefits, federal statutory rights, procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection,\u201d as described in their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1280\/408002\/20260504234919568_Boysen%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">SCOTUS petition<\/a>. They also \u201casserted <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/crs-product\/R45825\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supremacy Clause preemption<\/a> with respect to the \u2018mandated\u2019 COVID-19 investigational drugs, thus negating [PeaceHealth and state\u2019s] reliance on any <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/rational_basis_test\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">rational basis<\/a> argument appropriate to FDA approved and established vaccines.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Judge Ann Aiken, a Clinton appointee, granted PeaceHealth and the state\u2019s motions to <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/district-courts\/oregon\/ordce\/6:2023cv01229\/174935\/34\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dismiss<\/a> the challengers\u2019 lawsuit in August 2024. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca9\/24-5204\/24-5204-2025-12-03.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">affirmed<\/a> that ruling in December 2025. The decision came almost two months after the appellate court <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca9\/24-1869\/24-1869-2025-10-06.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dismissed<\/a> a similar lawsuit brought by Washington State health care workers against their employer and the state\u2019s Covid shot mandates. <\/p>\n<p>With nowhere left to go, the <em>Boysen<\/em> plaintiffs <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1280\/408002\/20260504234919568_Boysen%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> SCOTUS to take up their case on May 4.<\/p>\n<h2>Legal Analysis<\/h2>\n<p>Speaking with The Federalist, Vecchione underscored several holdings from the lower courts that he and <a href=\"https:\/\/nclalegal.org\/press_release\/ncla-urges-supreme-court-to-hear-vaccine-mandate-case-that-clearly-misreads-precedent\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">NCLA<\/a> believe to be incorrect. As documented in their <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1280\/416749\/20260717122151099_2026.07.17%20Boysen%20Amicus.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">brief<\/a> encouraging SCOTUS to take up the case, he said those holdings misinterpret a key 1905 Supreme Court decision known as <em><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/197\/11\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Jacobson v. Massachusetts<\/a><\/em>. <\/p>\n<p>In <em>Jacobson<\/em>, the high court upheld a Massachusetts law permitting localities to require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. As described by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1900-1940\/197us11\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>, the high court ruled (7-2) the statute fell within the legitimate use of a state\u2019s police power \u201cto protect the public health and safety of its citizens,\u201d and that \u201c[l]ocal boards of health determined when mandatory vaccinations were needed, thus making the requirement neither unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Vecchione noted that the smallpox vaccine had been around for some time at that point, and that it was well known to be a \u201csterilizing vaccine.\u201d In other words, that recipients would be \u201csterilized of smallpox and cannot spread it to other people.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe believe that\u2019s the key reason why <em>Jacobson<\/em> came out the way it did,\u201d he added. <\/p>\n<p>Turning to <em>Boysen<\/em>, Vecchione argued that the lower courts have misapplied <em>Jacobson<\/em> to uphold Covid vaccine mandates. <\/p>\n<p>On one prong, he said that the 9th Circuit\u2019s holding that <em>Jacobson<\/em> requires courts to apply rational basis review \u2014 the least strict standard applied by courts to challenged laws \u2014 to <em>any<\/em> vaccine mandate is incorrect because subsequent SCOTUS decisions have affirmed that Americans \u201cget to control your own health decisions within reasonable bounds.\u201d He said that such rulings have \u201ctaken a more searching look than just rational basis.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>\u201cA problem with [rational basis] is not just that it\u2019s a low-level standard, but that the court can make up reasons that the legislature didn\u2019t have. If they can think of anything that would make it rational for the law to go into effect, then that upholds the law,\u201d Vecchione said. Decisions since <em>Jacobson<\/em> have recognized that \u201cthere\u2019s got to be a greater analysis of whether this rule impinges on your personal rights, what is the reason for [it], and [whether] it holds up under constitutional scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Another issue with the 9th Circuit\u2019s holding, as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1280\/416749\/20260717122151099_2026.07.17%20Boysen%20Amicus.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">highlighted<\/a> by NCLA, is that <em>Jacobson<\/em> applies \u201ceven where the vaccine is mandated <em>only<\/em> for the recipient\u2019s benefit.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>Drawing a contrast to <em>Jacobson<\/em> and the sterilizing effect of the smallpox vaccines, Vecchione said that the lower courts\u2019 new standard allows the government to mandate citizens to take the Covid shot even though the jabs don\u2019t prevent transmission of the virus. He also said that this expansive standard could be used to force those with natural immunity and antibodies to get the shot. <\/p>\n<p>The government will \u201ctell you that you have to take the risk of taking the vaccine with whatever side effects it has, and they\u2019ll make the decision of whether that\u2019s better for you or not,\u201d Vecchione said. \u201cCan the government make you exercise and eat less until your weight is down? Can it say you can\u2019t smoke? What\u2019s the limiting principle? There is none as far as we can tell.\u201d<\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Should SCOTUS Revisit Its 120-Year-Old Vaccine Precedent?\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/ynTJpP0sWAI?feature=oembed&#038;enablejsapi=1\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>Vecchione reiterated NCLA\u2019s position that <em>Jacobson<\/em> \u201cis all about [the government] forcing you to do something that will prevent you transferring [a disease] to other people and stopping epidemics\u201d \u2014 not forcing Americans to get a vaccine (like for Covid) that doesn\u2019t achieve those objectives. He said that while they\u2019re not asking SCOTUS to overrule <em>Jacobson<\/em>, they are asking the justices to bring clarity to the issue given its affirmation \u201cmany times since then that you have the right to refuse medical treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2>Looking Ahead<\/h2>\n<p>Despite remaining a persistent issue in the lower judiciary, the Supreme Court has regularly <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/29\/gorsuch-skewers-scotus-for-ducking-covid-shot-mandate-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">refused<\/a> to take up cases involving challenges to Covid vaccine mandates. (At least four justices must agree to hear a case before the full court can consider it). <\/p>\n<p>The most recent example came in the closing days of the high court\u2019s 2025 term, when it <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/29\/gorsuch-skewers-scotus-for-ducking-covid-shot-mandate-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">declined<\/a> to hear arguments in <em>Doe v. Hochul<\/em>. The case dealt with a Title VII challenge by New York health care workers who were fired after choosing not to get the Covid shot on religious grounds.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs\u2019 petition only received support from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.<\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/29\/gorsuch-skewers-scotus-for-ducking-covid-shot-mandate-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Gorsuch Skewers SCOTUS For Ducking Covid Shot Mandate Case<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Should the high court agree to hear <em>Boysen<\/em> in its upcoming term, Vecchione predicted that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett \u2014 the three Republican appointees who have been most hesitant to take up such issues \u2014 will be key to the case\u2019s outcome.<\/p>\n<p>While all three justices ruled against President Biden\u2019s OSHA Covid vaccine mandate in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2021\/21a244\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">NFIB v. OSHA<\/a><\/em>  (2022), Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the Democrat appointees in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2021\/21a240\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Biden v. Missouri<\/a><\/em>  (2022) in upholding the administration\u2019s mandate for health care workers at facilities participating in Medicare and Medicaid. And much like Roberts and Kavanaugh, Barrett has a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/2026\/07\/counting-all-of-justice-barretts-votes\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">track record<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2021\/12\/court-rejects-religious-challenge-to-new-yorks-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">turning<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2021\/10\/court-turns-away-religious-challenge-to-maines-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">away<\/a> Americans seeking relief from overreaching Covid shot requirements. <\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/25-1280.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">extended<\/a> on Monday the time by which PeaceHealth may file a response to the <em>Boysen<\/em> petitioners\u2019 filing to Sept. 8. It\u2019s unclear when the high court will decide whether to accept or reject the case. <\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court may correct lower courts&#8217; Covid vaccine rulings<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":539,"featured_media":2649781,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Covid-shot.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[43482,84677,32068,32275,38780],"class_list":["post-2649780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-constitutional-law","tag-legal-jurisprudence","tag-public-health","tag-supreme-court","tag-vaccine-mandate"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Covid-shot.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2649780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2649780"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2649780\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2649788,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2649780\/revisions\/2649788"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2649781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2649780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2649780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2649780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}