The main holding of the 3-judge panel is 2 parts: 1) that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. ____a) He was discriminated against. _b) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this fact. Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated. ____2) (the good part) main holding, the “merits” of the case: the federal district court judge ERRED by using the Jacobson Supreme Court case. The trial judge used an old case about smallpox vaccines. Under Jacobson, the government has a rational basis to force vaccines that prevent the spread of disease. In the present case, the 9th finds Jacobson does not apply. ____a) Plaintiff argued at trial that “the shots” do not prevent the spread of disease. ____+ b) Defendant LAUSD argued “safe and effective” = a failed argument to apply Jacobson standard that the government can mandate vaccines. 9th held that because the defendant did not show that “the shots” were made to and could prevent disease therefore the District Court was wrong in using Jacobson. ____Plaintiff’s argument back in trial at the District Court will be: over his liberty interest, based upon his “fundamental right” to not be forced to take a therapeutic medicine just to keep his job.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is 2 parts: 1) that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. ____a) He was discriminated against. _b) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this fact. Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated. ____**** 2) (the good part) main holding, the “merits” of the case: the federal district court judge ERRED**** by using the Jacobson Supreme Court case. The trial judge used an old case about smallpox vaccines. Under Jacobson, the government has a rational basis to force vaccines that prevent the spread of disease. In the present case, the 9th finds Jacobson does not apply. ____a) Plaintiff argued at trial that “the shots” do not prevent the spread of disease. ____+ b) Defendant LAUSD argued “safe and effective” = a failed argument to apply Jacobson standard that the government can mandate vaccines. 9th held that because the defendant did not show that “the shots” were made to and could prevent disease therefore the District Court was wrong in using Jacobson. ____Plaintiff’s argument back in trial at the District Court will be: over his liberty interest, based upon his “fundamental right” to not be forced to take a therapeutic medicine just to keep his job.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is 2 parts: 1) that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. a) He was discriminated against. b) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this fact.___ Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated.**** 2) (the good part) main holding, the “merits” of the case: the federal district court judge ERRED**** by using the Jacobson Supreme Court case. The trial judge used an old case about smallpox vaccines. Under Jacobson, the government has a rational basis to force vaccines that prevent the spread of disease. In the present case, the 9th finds Jacobson does not apply. a) Plaintiff argued at trial that “the shots” do not prevent the spread of disease. + b) Defendant LAUSD argued “safe and effective” = a failed argument to apply Jacobson standard that the government can mandate vaccines. 9th held that because the defendant did not show that “the shots” were made to and could prevent disease therefore the District Court was wrong in using Jacobson. Plaintiff’s argument back in trial at the District Court will be: over his liberty interest, based upon his “fundamental right” to not be forced to take a therapeutic medicine just to keep his job.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is 2 parts: 1) that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. a) He was discriminated against. b) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this fact.___ Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated.**** 2) (the good part) main holding, the “merits” of the case: the federal district court judge ERRED**** by using the Jacobson Supreme Court case. The trial judge used an old case about smallpox vaccines. Under Jacobson, the government has a rational basis to force vaccines that prevent the spread of disease. In the present case, the 9th finds Jacobson does not apply. a) Plaintiff argued at trial that “the shots” do not prevent the spread of disease. + b) Defendant LAUSD argued “safe and effective” = a failed argument to apply Jacobson standard that the government can mandate vaccines. 9th held that because the defendant did not show that “the shots” were made to and could prevent disease therefore the District Court was wrong in using Jacobson. Plaintiff has a liberty interest, based upon his “fundamental right” to not be forced to take a therapeutic medicine just to keep his job.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is 2 parts: 1) that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. a) He was discriminated against. b) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this fact.___ Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated.**** 2) (the good part) main holding, the “merits” of the case: the federal district court judge ERRED**** by using the Jacobson Supreme Court case. The trial judge used an old case about smallpox vaccines. Under Jacobson, the government has a rational basis to force vaccines that prevent thespreadof disease. In the present case, the 9th finds Jacobson does not apply. a) Plaintiff argued at trial that “the shots” do not prevent the spread of disease. + b) Defendant LAUSD argued “safe and effective” = a failed argument to apply Jacobson standard that the government can mandate vaccines. 9th held that because the defendant did not show that “the shots” were mandated to prevent disease” therefore the District Court was wrong in using Jacobson. Plaintiff has a liberty interest, based upon his “fundamental right” to not be forced to take a therapeutic medicine just to keep his job.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. 1) He was discriminated against. 2) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines and because this is not in dispute, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this as a basic fact.___ Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. 1) He was discriminated against. 2) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines and because this is not in dispute, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this as a basic fact.___ Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots.. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. 1) He was discriminated against. 2) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines and because this is not in dispute, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this as a basic fact.___ Defendant LAUSD had a pattern of mandating, then stopping mandating, then mandating again the shots. The majority opinion noted that because defendant LAUSD had this pattern, defendant showed that the plaintiff likely would face employment discrimination in the future by likelihood of LAUSD bringing back the mandated shots.. So plaintiff gets to have his case heard, that he wrongfully suffered from not having his fundamental right respected (you can’t be forced to receive medicine) and plaintiff argues he deserves compensation for being unjustly treated.

The main holding of the 3-judge panel is that the plaintiff’s case is not moot (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on defendant LA unified school argument at trial: that because LAUSD no longer requires the vaccine, the case is moot, the plaintiff no longer faces being forced to get vaxxed, so he has no case.). So the 9th reversed the trial court’s decision and the trial court now has to hear the case and decide based upon the plaintiff’s argument. 1) He was discriminated against. 2) He alleged that the mRNA shots are not vaccines but therapeutic medicines and because this is not in dispute, the 9th Circuit stated that the trial will move forward with this as a basic fact.