But the Trump administration has been pretty consistent in opposing vaccine mandates. If Adams is beholden to Trump, he should be perfectly happy rehiring Michael and his colleagues.
Our case does not challenge the mandate nor efficacy of the shot. Our case rest firmly on the 1st amendment and title 7 for denying our religious exemptions to vaccination
I respectfully disagree that there's firmness to your argument. The published case definitions are so bad that no action premised on them could ever be lawful. Your title vii argument saying the mandate is fine and the case definition is fine and you just want an exemption is not firm, it's vacuous. Title vii would apply to exemptions to valid actions but the mandate is not a valid action. The remedy is not to give an exemption but to void the mandate.
As for the 1st amendment part, sorry but the mandate knowingly relied on an invalid case definition. You not challenging the mandate affirms it, which reinforces the state's claimed power to burden the rights of citizens under facially materially invalid premises. So not challenging the mandate inflicts a rights injury more profound than the one you say you suffered from.
The remedy you recommend failed when it was brought to the court back in 2021 by Rachel Maniscalco and hundreds of teachers who supported her efforts and attorneys. I didn't join that lawsuit because despite the fact that i agreed with it - and with you - I was fully aware of the current state of federal court precedent. Mandates should he illegal but currently they are not because of the JACOBSON ruling. This is why Maniscalco's case lost within a few months but the KANE case still has legs 4 years later. Because the right to RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION in America is firmly documented and upheld by the federal courts. Its not that I fundamentally disagree with you at all, it is merely a matter of knowing what the courts have actually ruled for the past 120 years to know what is a viable legal action at this time and what is not
Really the mandate's premise (using cases as evidence of risk) was invalid on its face, therefore the state had no power to act at all. CDC guidance was nonbinding, the state had a burden to construct a rational basis from what the CDC shitted out. The state not only didn't do that, they actively prevented it from being done. They have a burden to explain and justify why they did what they did, and all they can say is "because cases," but cases fall apart at a glance (outrageously broad to begin with, then symptoms removed and fully rely on tests which also fail the most casual scrutiny). They can't meet the burden. If you can make them try to defend the case definition, you win.
I think Jacobson is not even in play because there is no demonstrable public health necessity. Cases are epistemically invalid, not evidence of anything, and incapable of demonstrating risk. Jacobson can't save a mandate built on a void premise.
Jacobson is at play because many circuit courts are upholding in in COVID litigation. The 9th Circuit is the only court to call into question of Jacobson applies but that decision is still being deliberated on in a rare en banc court
Also you should know that courts HATE judging science. Judges do not feel like it is their place to determine science. They defer to the public health agencies like crazy. We are at a very interesting moment where RFK is saying every day that these agencies have been lying for decades, so there is an opportunity. Hopefully we see some good case law in the months and years ahead due to all of these radically refreshing circumstances.
You think they'd hate it more to have to say out loud that covid has no symptoms?
It's not a matter of determining science. There is no possibility of doing science with any version of the case definition (with or without symptoms). It's a matter of law, not science. The definition is bad means any action premised on cases must be found unlawful and set aside. The mandate is bad. Also CDC guidance was explicitly nonbinding, NY's binding action (the mandate) rubber stamping CDC is not entitled to deference. NY has the burden to show how they determined that cases = infections. That's an automatic loss for them. But if you have your reasons you do you and good luck.
Do not let a root of "evil" win. Get our back pay and jobs back please,!!
Rep. Pingree has proposed an amendment to remove Sec. 453. It's last minute but call if you can. https://x.com/ChildrensHD/status/1947413134039269860
He is beholding to Trump now.
But the Trump administration has been pretty consistent in opposing vaccine mandates. If Adams is beholden to Trump, he should be perfectly happy rehiring Michael and his colleagues.
Only for the military.
And schools.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-prohibits-federal-funding-for-covid-19-vaccine-mandates-in-schools/
In the past 7 polls Adams hasn't broken past 13%
Trump just said Cuomo should stay in the race for NYC mayor. A real slap in the face to Adams
Adams is doing terribly - and Trump doesn't like losers
How did you lose the rational basis challenge when they removed symptoms from the case definition and even changed the definition of vaccine.
Our case does not challenge the mandate nor efficacy of the shot. Our case rest firmly on the 1st amendment and title 7 for denying our religious exemptions to vaccination
I respectfully disagree that there's firmness to your argument. The published case definitions are so bad that no action premised on them could ever be lawful. Your title vii argument saying the mandate is fine and the case definition is fine and you just want an exemption is not firm, it's vacuous. Title vii would apply to exemptions to valid actions but the mandate is not a valid action. The remedy is not to give an exemption but to void the mandate.
As for the 1st amendment part, sorry but the mandate knowingly relied on an invalid case definition. You not challenging the mandate affirms it, which reinforces the state's claimed power to burden the rights of citizens under facially materially invalid premises. So not challenging the mandate inflicts a rights injury more profound than the one you say you suffered from.
The remedy you recommend failed when it was brought to the court back in 2021 by Rachel Maniscalco and hundreds of teachers who supported her efforts and attorneys. I didn't join that lawsuit because despite the fact that i agreed with it - and with you - I was fully aware of the current state of federal court precedent. Mandates should he illegal but currently they are not because of the JACOBSON ruling. This is why Maniscalco's case lost within a few months but the KANE case still has legs 4 years later. Because the right to RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION in America is firmly documented and upheld by the federal courts. Its not that I fundamentally disagree with you at all, it is merely a matter of knowing what the courts have actually ruled for the past 120 years to know what is a viable legal action at this time and what is not
I hear that, and good on ya, and thank you.
Really the mandate's premise (using cases as evidence of risk) was invalid on its face, therefore the state had no power to act at all. CDC guidance was nonbinding, the state had a burden to construct a rational basis from what the CDC shitted out. The state not only didn't do that, they actively prevented it from being done. They have a burden to explain and justify why they did what they did, and all they can say is "because cases," but cases fall apart at a glance (outrageously broad to begin with, then symptoms removed and fully rely on tests which also fail the most casual scrutiny). They can't meet the burden. If you can make them try to defend the case definition, you win.
I think Jacobson is not even in play because there is no demonstrable public health necessity. Cases are epistemically invalid, not evidence of anything, and incapable of demonstrating risk. Jacobson can't save a mandate built on a void premise.
Jacobson is at play because many circuit courts are upholding in in COVID litigation. The 9th Circuit is the only court to call into question of Jacobson applies but that decision is still being deliberated on in a rare en banc court
Also you should know that courts HATE judging science. Judges do not feel like it is their place to determine science. They defer to the public health agencies like crazy. We are at a very interesting moment where RFK is saying every day that these agencies have been lying for decades, so there is an opportunity. Hopefully we see some good case law in the months and years ahead due to all of these radically refreshing circumstances.
Courts hate judging science?
You think they'd hate it more to have to say out loud that covid has no symptoms?
It's not a matter of determining science. There is no possibility of doing science with any version of the case definition (with or without symptoms). It's a matter of law, not science. The definition is bad means any action premised on cases must be found unlawful and set aside. The mandate is bad. Also CDC guidance was explicitly nonbinding, NY's binding action (the mandate) rubber stamping CDC is not entitled to deference. NY has the burden to show how they determined that cases = infections. That's an automatic loss for them. But if you have your reasons you do you and good luck.
Seems to me it's mostly a 4th amendment and HIPAA issue.
Not for this lawsuit - this lawsuit in particular focuses on religious liberty
Yes I was denied a religious exemption.
Because these people are loonies and mostly atheists (their right to believe what they want but they’re not following The NYS Constitution)