On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al. v. Megan K. Reilly et al., vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is an affront to all who value truth, justice, the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for mandating Covid injections for all employees. We argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. We contended that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case from 1905, did not apply to our case because Jacobson was predicated both on the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification.

Nearly a year later, in September 2022, the district court ruled against the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. In June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit. That petition was granted in February of 2025, and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel on March 18, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case.

It bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. This case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such an ignominious reputation. …

There are many more issues with the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling. But for brevity’s sake, I will make only a few more comments.

It is remarkable that no Ninth Circuit judge took the time to write a concurrence—especially in light of the tenor of oral argument before the en banc panel in March 2025. During oral argument, the questions posed by the majority of the judges suggested they favored the arguments of plaintiffs and we left the court feeling very optimistic, while counsel for the defendants looked downcast. Yet none of those judges championing the principles during the hearing took the time to write a concurrence in support of the majority opinion. I can only wonder why not.

The biggest takeaway from the ruling is this: If the state can mandate a medical product under a real or a fake public health scare, can it mandate any medical intervention it chooses? What are the limits of the state’s power? Can it mandate psych meds to improve public morale? Order the use of Adderall to enhance public productivity? Regulate sugar to improve immunity? Decree forced pregnancy to ensure a stable population? Of course, all of these dictates would be for the greater good!

Judge Bennett wrote, “We reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit Jacobson to only those vaccines that prevent the spread of a disease and provide immunity.”

By the court’s logic, there is no limit to the power of the state—a conclusion that should terrify us all. Equally concerning: The Ninth Circuit has abdicated its power and authority to hold public servants accountable. When the courts cannot be relied upon to hold public servants accountable, who can? And where does that leave us?

Judge Lee wrote in the fitting conclusion to his powerful dissent, “As a practical matter, I fear we are giving the government a blank check to foist health treatment mandates on the people—despite its checkered track record—when we should be imposing a check against the government’s incursion into our liberties.”