Judge Strikes Down San Diego Schools Vaccine Mandate as ‘Inconsistent With State Law’ – Opinion

A California state judge struck down San Diego Unified School District’s student COVID-19 vaccine mandate Monday, ruling that it was “inconsistent with state law.” This means that all SDUSD students can continue in-person instruction regardless of COVID-19 vaccine status.

Two lawsuits were filed challenging the mandate, one on behalf of a parent whose student was going to be forced to get the jab to continue in-person instruction, and one by the parent group “Let Them Breathe.” The lawsuits were joined for the purpose of hearing a petition for a writ of mandate, and oral arguments were held Monday morning. After hearing oral arguments, the judge gave a tentative decision to strike down the mandate at 9:00 a.m. The tentative ruling became final after the judges made their final ruling.

In issuing the ruling, Judge John Meyer agreed with Petitioners’ contention that SDUSD’s “Vaccination Roadmap” is preempted by the California Education Code and directly conflicts with other state laws. Petitioners cited case law holding that “under the normal rules of preemption, a local ordinance that conflicts with state law is preempted by the state law and void. . . .Pursuant to preemption law, a conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.”

Under California Education Code Section 35160, SDUSD “may initiate and carry on any program, activity, or may otherwise act in any manner which is not in conflict with or inconsistent with, or preempted by, any law and which is not in conflict with the purposes for which school districts are established.”

In Monday’s ruling, the Court outlined the California Legislature’s efforts to regulate vaccination in schools, starting with the smallpox vaccine. In 1890, California’s Supreme Court upheld the Vaccination Act. It also stated that the Legislature had the sole power to require vaccination. The Legislature delegated the authority to control the spread of smallpox to the Department of Public Health but specifically stated that “no rule or regulation on the subject of vaccination shall be adopted by school or local health authorities.”

The Court also noted that the ten vaccinations currently required for admission to California schools were placed on that list through legislative action “after careful consideration of the public health risk of these diseases, cost to the state health system, communicability, and rates of transmission” and that the requirements were supported by a statewide statutory and regulatory scheme which offered exemptions for medical reasons and personal beliefs – which, clearly, a district-by-district scheme does not offer.

California’s personal belief exemption was removed by the Legislature in 2015 after heated debate, and, as pro-mandate forces often state, that law also allows additional vaccines to be added to that list. Not surprisingly, that law doesn’t work exactly how pro-mandate advocates think it does. The ruling is:

“Recognizing the need for additional vaccine mandates that may arise in the future, the Legislature added a ‘number 11’ mandating that school children be vaccinated against ‘[any]The doctor may also consider other diseases appropriate. [State Department of Public Health], taking into consideration the recommendations’” of immunization advisory committees of DHHS, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Important:

“However, because the addition of a new mandate via this ‘catch all’ provision ‘disrupts the careful balancing of the various rights involved’ in the legislative process, the Legislature decided to maintain the ‘personal beliefs’ exemption for new vaccination requirements added by the DPH.”

California’s Department of Public Health has not added the COVID-19 vaccine to its list of required vaccines, and if it did, a personal belief exemption would have to be included by law. In addition, what constitutes an exemption for personal belief or medical reason is already laid out in the law and wouldn’t be the extremely narrow versions many localities are attempting to enforce. For example, a district of community colleges approves medical exceptions only for individuals whose contraindications/precautions are approved by the CDC.

“In light of the above, it is clear that SDUSD’s Roadmap attempts to impose an additional requirement in a field that the Legislature fully occupies through Health and Safety Code section 120325 et seq. A detailed program was created by the Legislature to establish a standard across all states for school vaccine requirements. While the Legislature had intended to add new vaccine requirements without legislative action, the DPH was given that task after taking into consideration recommendations from other organizations and agencies. The statutory scheme leaves no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates, including those like the Roadmap that lack a personal belief exemption and therefore are even stricter than what the DPH could itself impose upon learned consideration.”

The judge stated that while he personally believed the district’s mandate was rational and necessary, that his job was to determine whether or not it was preempted by state law, and that is exactly what he determined.

“Unfortunately, the field of school vaccine mandates has been fully occupied by the State, and the Roadmap directly conflicts with state law. The Legislature must make a COVID-19 vaccination mandate, without any exemption for personal beliefs. Accordingly, this Court is compelled to GRANT the petitions for writ of mandate.”

Based on the discussion in the ruling, it would also seem that individual school districts don’t have the authority to enact any vaccine mandate, period, even with a personal belief exemption.

Some California school districts pulled out of implementing vaccine mandates because they were concerned about the number of students affected and the threat to litigation. However, it’s good to know that a court has ruled in favor of local mandates. Parents in other districts may be able use the ruling and threat of losing lawsuits to persuade their district to drop mandates.

And, could this line – “no rule or regulation on the subject of vaccination shall be adopted by school or local health authorities” – lead to successful challenges of local regulations/orders requiring people to show proof of vaccination before entering public places like restaurants, sporting events, public transportation, and more? These are regulations or rules that have been adopted by local authorities and not legislation.

As far as the statewide mandate Gavin Newsom announced on October 1, 2021, at this point it’s toothless. This press release is from:

“In order to further protect students and staff and continue supporting a safe return to in-person instruction for all students, the Governor directed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to follow the procedures established by the Legislature to add the COVID-19 vaccine to other vaccinations required for in-person school attendance—such as measles, mumps, and rubella—pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. COVID-19 vaccine requirements will be phased-in by grade span, which will also promote smoother implementation.”

The press release doesn’t mention that this requirement would have to include a personal belief exemption, but Gov. Hair Gel encouraged San Diego and other districts to pursue independent actions in violation of state law.

“However, local health jurisdictions and local education agencies are encouraged to implement requirements ahead of a statewide requirement based on their local circumstances.”

Maybe they’ll petition Newsom to pay their legal fees?

About Post Author

Follow Us