No. 23-996
`
`
`IN THE
`
`___________
`JEANNA NORRIS, et al.,
`
`
`V.
`SAMUEL STANLEY, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`RESPONDENTS.
`
`___________
`On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
`__________
`AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MEDICAL
`PROFESSIONALS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONERS
`__________
`Jacob Huebert
` Counsel of Record
`Reilly Stephens
`LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
`440 N. Wells Street
`Suite 200
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 637-2280
`jhuebert@ljc.org
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`___________
`JEANNA NORRIS, et al.,
`
`
`V.
`SAMUEL STANLEY, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`RESPONDENTS.
`
`___________
`On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
`__________
`AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MEDICAL
`PROFESSIONALS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONERS
`__________
`Jacob Huebert
` Counsel of Record
`Reilly Stephens
`LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
`440 N. Wells Street
`Suite 200
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 637-2280
`jhuebert@ljc.org
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`Whether Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11
`(1905), when read in light of this Court’s later ac-
`knowledgment that the right to refuse treatment is
`“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,”
`requires that governmental actions which oblige indi-
`viduals to submit to intrusive medical procedures on
`pain of penalties such as losing public employment
`must be subject to heightened scrutiny, and if so,
`whether Respondents’ Covid vaccine mandate failed
`this test?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................... i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................. ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iii
`INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ........................ 1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2
`ARGUMENT ................................................................ 3
`I. Mandatory vaccination should be subject to
`heightened scrutiny. ........................................ 3
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA, 17 F.4th 604, 618
`(5th Cir. 2021) .......................................................... 3
`Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S.
`261 (1990) ................................................................. 2
`Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. DOL, OSHA, 595 U.S.
`109 (2022) ................................................................. 3
`Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955) ... 3
`Other Authorities
`Adam Cohen, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court,
`American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie
`Buck 66 (2016) ........................................................ 10
`Apoorva Mandavilli, The C.D.C. concedes that cloth
`masks do not protect against the virus as effectively
`as other masks, New York Times, Jan. 14, 2022 .... 8
`Bendavid, Eran; Oh, Christopher; Bhattacharya, Jay;
`Ioannidis, John P.A. (April 2021). Assessing
`Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure
`Effects on the Spread of COVID-19, European
`Journal of Clinical Investigation, 51 (4): e13484.
`doi:10.1111/eci.13484. ISSN 0014-2972. PMC
`7883103. PMID 33400268 ........................................ 9
`Bridget Balch, Vaccines Work Well Against The Delta
`Variant. Here’s Why You Should Wear A Mask
`Anyway, Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls (Aug. 3, 2021) .... 5
`Dan Diamond, Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say
`Social Justice Matters More Than Social
`Distancing, Politico (June 4, 2020) .......................... 6
`Deborah Netburn, To wear a mask or not? Experts
`Answer Coronavirus Protection Questions, L.A.
`Times (Mar. 24, 2020) .............................................. 4
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Madara, MD in Support
`of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction ¶
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`10, Am. Med. Ass’n v. Stenehjem, No. 1:19-cv-
`00125-DLH-CRH, ECF No. 6-5 (D.N.D. June 25,
`2019) ....................................................................... 11
`Diana Herrera-Perez et al., A Comprehensive Review
`of Randomized Clinical Trials in Three Medical
`Journals Reveals 396 Medical Reversals, in Meta-
`Research, A Collection of Articles (Peter A. Rodgers
`ed., 2019) ................................................................ 10
`Dr. M. Joshua Hendrix et al., Absence of Apparent
`Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Stylists
`After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal
`Face Covering Policy — Springfield, Missouri, May
`2020, CDC (July 17, 2020) ....................................... 4
`Fauci On How His Thinking Has Evolved On Masks,
`Asymptomatic Transmission, Wash. Post (July 24,
`2020) ......................................................................... 4
`FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Third
`Covid-19 Vaccine, FDA (Feb. 27, 2021) ................... 7
`Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation
`and Quarantine of the General Public, Cal. Dep’t Of
`Pub. Health (June 9, 2022) ...................................... 8
`Jen Christensen & Deidre McPhillips, ‘Reassuring’
`Data Suggests Johnson & Johnson Vaccine May
`Still Have Role To Play Against Covid-19, CNN
`(Mar. 20, 2022) ......................................................... 7
`Jeremy B. White, Newsom Closes All Orange County
`Beaches. Local Officials Call It An ‘Act Of
`Retribution’, Politico (Apr. 30, 2020) ....................... 5
`Joint CDC and FDA Statement on Johnson &
`Johnson Covid-19 Vaccine, FDA (Apr. 13, 2021) .... 7
`Karina Zaiets et al., Comparing the Covid-19
`vaccines, USA Today (Apr. 13, 2021) ...................... 7
`Kathy Katella, You Got the J&J Vaccine: Should You
`Get the booster?, Yale Med. (July 20, 2022) ............. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Laurel Wamsley & Selena Simmons-Duffin, The
`Science Behind a 14-Day Quarantine After Possible
`Covid Exposure, NPR (Apr. 1, 2020) ....................... 8
`Lois Beckett, California Governor Promises Changes
`To Lockdown As Protests Sweep State, The
`Guardian (May 1, 2020) ........................................... 6
`Matt Welch, Democrats Try To Whitewash Their
`Starring Role in School Closures, Reason, Aug. 31,
`2023. https://reason.com/2023/08/31/democrats-try-
`to-whitewash-their-starring-role-in-school-closures/
` .................................................................................. 9
`Michael Powell, Are Protests Dangerous? What
`Experts Say Might Depend on Who’s Protesting
`What, N.Y. Times (July 6, 2020) .......................... 5, 6
`Overview of COVID-19 Vaccines, CDC (Sept. 2, 2022)
` .................................................................................. 7
`Paul Karp & Lisa Cox, Coronavirus: People Not
`Complying With New Australian Self-Isolation
`Rules Could Face Fines, The Guardian (Mar. 15,
`2020) ......................................................................... 8
`Vinay Prasad & Adam Cifu, Medical Reversal: Why
`We Must Raise the Bar Before Adopting New
`Technologies, 84 Yale J. Biology & Med. 471, 472
`(2011) ........................................................................ 9
`Yuxin Wang et al., How Effective Is A Mask In
`Preventing COVID-19 Infection?, Nat’l. Libr. of
`Pub. Med. (Jan. 5, 2021) .......................................... 4
`
`
`
` v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1
`
`Amici, Mark McDonald, M.D., Jeff Barke, M.D.,
`and Ram Duriseti, M.D., Ph.D., are medical profes-
`sionals and advocates for the right of patients to make
`their own informed decisions about medical care with
`their doctors, without the unjustified intrusion of gov-
`ernment policymakers. They were each plaintiffs in
`one of two lawsuits that successfully challenged a re-
`cent California law that threatened the medical li-
`censes of doctors who expressed disagreement with the
`State’s preferred views regarding COVID-19. See
`McDonald v. Lawson, 94 F.4th 864 (9th Cir. 2024);
`Høeg v. Newsom, 652 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (E.D. Cal.
`2023).
`This case interests amici because the right of every
`American to make personal medical decisions for
`themselves is fundamental, and any attempt by gov-
`ernment to intrude into such private medical decisions
`should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Rule 37 statement: No counsel for any party authored any part
`of this brief, and no person or entity other than amici funded its
`preparation or submission. All counsel received timely notice of
`amici’ filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Individuals have a fundamental right to refuse
`medical care—indeed, to impose even lifesaving medi-
`cal care upon them would be a battery. See Cruzan v.
`Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990). It
`is not the role of the government to decide which indi-
`vidual risks each of us should take, or which protec-
`tions each of us should adopt.
`
`Yet the courts below held that the government has
`essentially free rein to impose mandatory medical care
`on more or less anyone they choose—as long as that
`mandatory medical care has a “rational basis,” which
`this court already knows is essentially a rubber stamp.
`Under rational basis review, if government officials re-
`quire individuals to take any vaccine, or contraceptive
`pill, or statin, or SSRI, that strikes their mood, courts
`must go out of their way to accept or invent a “rational”
`reason for it—regardless of whether it was the govern-
`ment’s actual reason or is supported by any evidence.
`
`Amici do not believe the mandated vaccinations at
`issue in this case were warranted. But even if they
`were, random middle-management government func-
`tionaries at a state university should not have had the
`power to make that decision for individuals, free from
`any scrutiny. Rather, any such intrusion into people’s
`bodily autonomy should have been subjected to height-
`ened judicial scrutiny—asking whether mandatory
`vaccination was in fact a sensible policy that actually
`furthered important government interests.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`The sort of rational basis review adopted by the
`lower courts is questionable in any context and espe-
`cially inappropriate here: forcible injection of experi-
`mental medication is not a minor intrusion, and bodily
`autonomy and integrity is not a marginal right. Amici
`therefore submit that mandatory vaccination should
`be subject to more rigorous review than, say, economic
`regulatory distinctions between opticians and optome-
`trists. See Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483
`(1955).
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`I. Mandatory vaccination should be subject to
`heightened scrutiny.
`
`As this Court has explained, mandatory vaccina-
`tion represents “a significant encroachment into the
`lives—and health—of . . . employees.” Nat’l Fed’n of
`Indep. Bus. v. DOL, OSHA, 595 U.S. 109 (2022). It is
`also therefore an invasion of the individual liberty in-
`terests protected by the Constitution. BST Holdings,
`L.L.C. v. OSHA, 17 F.4th 604, 618 (5th Cir. 2021)
`(“[T]he Mandate threatens to substantially burden the
`liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put
`to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).”) At no
`point has there been a consensus around COVID-19
`that would justify the sort of government certainty,
`and the invasion of individual rights based on it, that
`Petitioners challenge.
`
`From the start, the medical “consensus” response
`to COVID-19 has been variable, disputed, and evolv-
`ing. Examples abound. Consider the question whether
`masks are necessary or appropriate to prevent the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`spread of COVID-19. In March 2020, “[t]he Centers for
`Disease Control and Prevention’s advice [wa]s une-
`quivocal: Healthy people who do not work in the
`healthcare sector and are not taking care of an infected
`person at home do not need to wear masks” to protect
`themselves against COVID. Deborah Netburn, To
`wear a mask or not? Experts Answer Coronavirus Pro-
`tection Questions, L.A. Times (Mar. 24, 2020)2. A doc-
`tor telling adults outside the medical field to wear a
`mask—say, an N95 at a large indoor gathering—
`would have gone against this advice. But in July 2020,
`the CDC published a study supporting the use of
`masks and recommended workplace mask usage and
`daily symptom monitoring, and indeed masks would
`become a core strategy for reducing the spread of
`COVID. See Dr. M. Joshua Hendrix et al., Absence of
`Apparent Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from Two Styl-
`ists After Exposure at a Hair Salon with a Universal
`Face Covering Policy — Springfield, Missouri, May
`2020, CDC (July 17, 2020);3 see also Fauci On How His
`Thinking Has Evolved On Masks, Asymptomatic
`Transmission, Wash. Post (July 24, 2020)4; Yuxin
`Wang et al., How Effective Is A Mask In Preventing
`COVID-19 Infection?, Nat’l. Libr. of Pub. Med. (Jan. 5,
`2021) (“[W]e absolutely should be wearing masks con-
`sistently. So that was one of the things I guess you
`could have said that, back then, was a mistake.”).5 In
`May 2021, the CDC determined “that people who were
`fully vaccinated against COVID-19 could go into most
`public places without a mask”; two months later, the
`
`2 https://tinyurl.com/ywbdewxn.
`3 https://tinyurl.com/mwwhjhe5.
`4 https://tinyurl.com/ypkbrhf4.
`5 https://tinyurl.com/yvhtd4vh.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CDC “walked back its recommendations” because it
`concluded that “data suggest that fully vaccinated peo-
`ple infected with the delta variant may be able to
`transmit the virus to others.” Bridget Balch, Vaccines
`Work Well Against The Delta Variant. Here’s Why You
`Should Wear A Mask Anyway, Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls
`(Aug. 3, 2021).6 In announcing the change, Anthony
`Fauci said that “[t]he data are clear” before qualifying:
`“the most recent data.” Id.
`
`Then there is the question of public gatherings. “As
`the pandemic took hold, most epidemiologists”—ech-
`oed by public policymakers—said: “No students in
`classrooms, no in-person religious services, no visits to
`sick relatives in hospitals, no large public gatherings.”
`Michael Powell, Are Protests Dangerous? What Experts
`Say Might Depend on Who’s Protesting What, N.Y.
`Times (July 6, 2020).7 California Governor Gavin New-
`som even closed beaches. Jeremy B. White, Newsom
`Closes All Orange County Beaches. Local Officials Call
`It An ‘Act Of Retribution’, Politico (Apr. 30, 2020),
`(“The governor repeatedly chided outdoor recreators
`this week, warning that mass gatherings could under-
`mine California’s progress toward containing the coro-
`navirus.”).8 “[W]hen conservative anti-lockdown pro-
`testers gathered on state capitol steps,” “epidemiolo-
`gists scolded them and forecast surging infections.”
`Powell, supra. Newsom warned that “‘[t]housands of
`people congregating together, not practicing social dis-
`tancing or physical distancing’ could undermine the
`current progress in preventing the spread of the
`
`6 https://tinyurl.com/5n7mnkps.
`7 https://tinyurl.com/38vhjw68.
`8 https://tinyurl.com/drhxzpny.
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`virus.” Lois Beckett, California Governor Promises
`Changes To Lockdown As Protests Sweep State, The
`Guardian (May 1, 2020) (cleaned up).9
`
`Yet many changed their tune during the protests
`following the death of George Floyd: “[R]ather than de-
`crying mass gatherings, more than 1,300 public health
`officials signed a May 30 letter of support, and many
`joined the protests.” Powell, supra. Catherine Troisi,
`an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the University
`of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said: “I
`certainly condemned the anti-lockdown protests at the
`time, and I’m not condemning the protests now, and I
`struggle with that I have a hard time articulating why
`that is OK.” Id. (cleaned up).
`
`Nicholas A. Christakis, professor of social and nat-
`ural science at Yale, said: “We allowed thousands of
`people to die alone. We buried people by Zoom. Now all
`of a sudden we are saying, never mind?” Id. “[T]he for-
`mer dean of Harvard Medical School” “pointed out that
`the protesters were also engaging in behaviors, like
`loud singing in close proximity, which [the] CDC ha[d]
`repeatedly suggested could be linked to spreading the
`virus.” Dan Diamond, Suddenly, Public Health Offi-
`cials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Dis-
`tancing, Politico (June 4, 2020).10
`
`Authorities have not even been consistent in their
`views about the risks and efficacy of COVID vaccines.
`In 2021, official experts told the public that the John-
`son & Johnson vaccine was safe and just as effective
`
`9 https://tinyurl.com/5ddczv89.
`10 https://tinyurl.com/34cue3mn.
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`as the other vaccines. Karina Zaiets et al., Comparing
`the Covid-19 vaccines, USA Today (Apr. 13, 2021);11
`see FDA Issues Emergency Use Authorization for Third
`Covid-19 Vaccine, FDA (Feb. 27, 2021).12 Doctors who
`endorsed getting a different vaccine instead would
`have been out of line with the apparent medical con-
`sensus. Six weeks later, however, updated FDA and
`CDC guidance called for a pause of the Johnson &
`Johnson vaccine. See Joint CDC and FDA Statement
`on Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 Vaccine, FDA (Apr.
`13, 2021).13 “In December, the CDC changed its recom-
`mendations to say shots made by Moderna and
`Pfizer/BioNTech are preferred.” Jen Christensen &
`Deidre McPhillips, ‘Reassuring’ Data Suggests John-
`son & Johnson Vaccine May Still Have Role To Play
`Against Covid-19, CNN (Mar. 20, 2022);14 see Overview
`of COVID-19 Vaccines, CDC (Sept. 2, 2022).15
`
`It turned out the final CDC guidance limited the
`use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because of “life-
`threatening blood clots that have been associated with
`the vaccine.” Kathy Katella, You Got the J&J Vaccine:
`Should You Get the booster?, Yale Med. (July 20,
`2022).16
`
`Consider also quarantines. In April 2020, medical
`authorities advised that quarantining for less than
`fourteen days puts others at risk. See Laurel Wamsley
`
`
`11 https://tinyurl.com/4x95ux4c.
`12 https://tinyurl.com/289h2rn3.
`13 https://tinyurl.com/zx9t7xmt.
`14 https://tinyurl.com/25ysj96v.
`15 https://tinyurl.com/58thyn94.
`16 https://tinyurl.com/9fuptc79.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`& Selena Simmons-Duffin, The Science Behind a 14-
`Day Quarantine After Possible Covid Exposure, NPR
`(Apr. 1, 2020).17 Some countries even enforced this un-
`derstanding through fines. See, e.g., Paul Karp & Lisa
`Cox, Coronavirus: People Not Complying With New
`Australian Self-Isolation Rules Could Face Fines, The
`Guardian (Mar. 15, 2020).18 A doctor recommending a
`five-day quarantine would have fallen far outside the
`then-conventional guidance. Fast forward two years,
`however, and that same doctor would be giving stand-
`ard advice. See Guidance for Local Health Jurisdic-
`tions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Pub-
`lic, Cal. Dep’t Of Pub. Health (June 9, 2022).19
`
`And, of course, the opinions of public-health offi-
`cials on whom government officials choose to rely are
`not the only opinions on these matters. On all these
`issues, there have been dissenters among researchers
`and practicing physicians such as Petitioners, whose
`advice to their patients on various COVID-related
`matters would differ in important respects from the
`government line of the moment. For years many med-
`ical experts, including petitioners, explained that the
`cloth masks required by force of law in many jurisdic-
`tions did little to no good—and after years of claiming
`otherwise the public health authorities eventually ad-
`mitted that was true. Apoorva Mandavilli, The C.D.C.
`concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the vi-
`rus as effectively as other masks, New York Times, Jan.
`
`
`17 https://tinyurl.com/24j9k843.
`18 https://tinyurl.com/3yemprus.
`19 https://tinyurl.com/jh7xpxyb.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14, 2022.20 Prominent public health researchers who
`disagreed with the official line existed the whole time,
`such as Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya, who
`warned that lockdowns would do far more harm than
`good.21 The public health authorities even disagreed
`with themselves, as when CDC Director Rochelle Wa-
`lensky endorsed, as a political appointee, the CDC’s
`six-foot social distancing requirement for schools—in
`contradiction of the three-foot guideline she’d pre-
`ferred as a Harvard professor.22
`
`Such changes in and differences among experts’
`opinions should not be surprising. Medical advice in
`always implicates a mix of fact and opinion, and
`many of the relevant issues—particularly involving a
`recent, ever-evolving virus with new vaccines—are
`not matters of established “fact.” And the nature of
`scientists’ and physicians’ work demands that they
`constantly challenge their own and others’ opinions
`as they review evidence and search for the truth. As a
`result of that process, knowledge evolves and
`changes. Medical “[r]eversal is not a rare occurrence.”
`Vinay Prasad & Adam Cifu, Medical Reversal: Why
`
`20 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-
`covid-cdc.html.
`21 See, e.g., Bendavid, Eran; Oh, Christopher; Bhattacharya,
`Jay; Ioannidis, John P.A. (April 2021). Assessing Mandatory
`Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of
`COVID-19, European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 51
`(4): e13484. doi:10.1111/eci.13484. ISSN 0014-2972. PMC
`7883103. PMID 33400268.
`22 Matt Welch, Democrats Try To Whitewash Their Starring
`Role in School Closures, Reason, Aug. 31, 2023. https://rea-
`son.com/2023/08/31/democrats-try-to-whitewash-their-star-
`ring-role-in-school-closures/.
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`We Must Raise the Bar Before Adopting New Technol-
`ogies, 84 Yale J. Biology & Med. 471, 472 (2011) (col-
`lecting many examples); see also Diana Herrera-Pe-
`rez et al., A Comprehensive Review of Randomized
`Clinical Trials in Three Medical Journals Reveals 396
`Medical Reversals, in Meta-Research, A Collection of
`Articles (Peter A. Rodgers ed., 2019). Many once-“con-
`sensus” medical views, including the need for loboto-
`mies and eugenic sterilizations, are no longer ac-
`cepted. See Adam Cohen, Imbeciles: The Supreme
`Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of
`Carrie Buck 66 (2016) (“The most important elite ad-
`vocating eugenic sterilization was the medical estab-
`lishment,” “with near unanimity”; “every article on
`the subject of eugenic sterilization published in a
`medical journal between 1899 and 1912 endorsed the
`practice”).
`
`
`History not only shows that medical “consensus”
`can change drastically; it also shows that individuals
`have every reason to be wary of governments that
`would restrict liberty in the name of health or medi-
`cine. “Throughout history, governments have manip-
`ulated the content of doctor-patient discourse to in-
`crease state power and suppress minorities.” Id.
`(cleaned up). “[D]uring the Cultural Revolution, Chi-
`nese physicians were dispatched to the countryside to
`convince peasants to use contraception”; “[i]n the
`1930s, the Soviet government expedited completion of
`a construction project on the Siberian railroad by or-
`dering doctors to both reject requests for medical
`leave from work and conceal this government order
`from their patients”; and “[i]n Nazi Germany,” “Ger-
`man physicians were taught that they owed a higher
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`duty to the ‘health of the Volk’ than to the health of
`individual patients.” Id. (cleaned up).
`
`As the CEO of the American Medical Association
`recently testified about a different law, “[g]overnment
`manipulation of doctor-patient discourse has a dark
`past and should not be taken lightly.” Declaration of
`Dr. James L. Madara, MD in Support of Plaintiffs’
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction ¶ 10, Am. Med.
`Ass’n v. Stenehjem, No. 1:19-cv-00125-DLH-CRH,
`ECF No. 6-5 (D.N.D. June 25, 2019). “
`
`
`As Petitioners argue, the importance of the right to
`bodily autonomy, by itself, calls for at least intermedi-
`ate scrutiny of government mandates that infringe on
`it. See Pets.’ Br. 13-17. The inherently questionable re-
`liability of the authorities and information on which
`government officials rely—and the threat of tyranny
`imposed in the guise of public health measures—fur-
`ther demonstrate that the extreme deference of ra-
`tional-basis review is inappropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should grant the petition.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Jacob Huebert
` Counsel of Record
`Reilly Stephens
`LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
`440 N. Wells Street
`Suite 200
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 637-2280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`April 5, 2024 jhuebert@ljc.org
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
